1
10
33
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1475a548da722f298870a78cf253f0e7.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=a8LoxNa3ID0aLLr0J%7Ehpyjf3GD1s3jgl5uc5dzkezbq1aSQt%7EGZwvRw2NggIdpf8D6uyuJt--eOSqcWFvMthPzkwiSyAGRpfUXLGJ8XrtBLOQBOq6N2fA61uCFSrIpot6HbVXfEIMBYdOMGzgCuqCrFDkQYgBGyE-cJd3-rWZYbUo9pELXIDBO44wFeANF4tENYY4Tl0-qfa0P-Ls3ao9aMN2CBGxJAvZWYH-FKf9hDfehYJM0LM9vaD4PMxWPKyNs2BiQ8-RgA6H1oVhsx6lkaCEaBaY-OmsAMcXRcMdnWLqZk84AziPZAd96qVkKuRSC2z-zxumyRc363hqZdQ7w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f01f82da3429e68b9a93b454f040ade0
PDF Text
Text
����������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Leith Hill and Wotton House
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 9 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Extensively annotated in ink (dated April 1871) and includes a letter folded and tipped inside the front cover headed 'Leith Hill and Wotton'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT72
G5679
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Architecture
History
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Leith Hill and Wotton House), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Architecture
Conway Tracts
De Vere Wotton House
Leith Hill
Surrey
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/fae76295df41f5b88fb385c568c26c14.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=RZfKvy-LzGkhGbBnX3SsOqxzf4%7EXWqbjfSxH4njq2L25IBG4okWc2nQvPa-kOFDxdPMB-SWT39GVn7163IZ0Kabk-8KOM-YhJ2dGhkcZUEWdDdnwLtrll19a292hxazxXis3Au886RhgfT-gx1CFOgdgy3BXXWjsi1xbSPMmQ1-Bv8S9bR0ELtW%7Ejx5NgAkmyY4Jjwe%7EvSBwU%7EGpEEawc0pDzpOF6k5WoQfMgjRQrwYWzRaw5lGbFv4cAC-1UZ0DK6VYYu6reBuh9gMzCnP2MGnbxBzv4FoJg96celk6sXaAgyGY47AaKxLXkQDGovxKKw0flRWwQ0kn0UBtn1oeLw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6a6a64c6707f3b288e10efa178366193
PDF Text
Text
über bie
am 10. 2tyrtl 1871 itt Wndjeit
abgeljaltene
"
. I■•
i
^at|onten = ^erfainmlun0.
Ui ad) ftenograp^ifcfjer Slufeei^nung.
Uliindjen, 1871.
® r u d üon (£. $R. <S d) u r t ä).
^adjbntdi i|t crfattßf, ttm ^etgreifttttg wirb gcMetu
��tí.
©er f. OberftaatSanwalt v. 2® o If:
Weine feljr geehrten Herren! ©eftatten Sie mir einige einleitenbe
Sßorte, in benen ich mir erlauben werbe, bie 23eranlaffung nnb ben
3metf ber gütigen 23erfammlung $Ijnen in Kür¿e bargulegen. ©ie
23efdjlüffe beS lebten fogenannten vaticanifchen Goncils haben mittler
*
meile, inSbefonbere in festerer Beit, ©hatfadjen gu ©age geförbert,
beren @onfequen¿en geeignet finb, bas ©ewiffen ber nach edjt religiös
*
fittlic^er Wahrheit ftrebenben Katholifen in bie Ijö^fte Unruhe nnb
Aufregung ¿u verfemen, Tonne bas tirdjlidje, politice nnb Kulturleben
im Staate auf’S ^öchfte ¿u gefallen, ja vielleicht gar ¿u vernichten.,
©a£ (Srfdjeinungen von fo eminent hoher iöebeutung bie forglidje 2Iuf=
merffamfeit aller benfenben Staatsangehörigen in Slnfpruch nehmen
muffen, ift meines ®rad;tenS wohl feinem 3loeifel unterworfen, unb
fo fam es benn, bafj vor einiger Beit eine rtnsahl gleidjgefinnter
Männer ¿ufammentrat, welche fid? über bie Wittel befyrad;en, bie
tl}eils gur Slbwe^r ber immer mehr um fich greifenben uncfjriftlicijen
©hrannei ber Kurie, t^eils ¿ur $erfteUung eines normalen BuftanbeS,
wie er bem wahren ©cifte bes ^hriftenthumS unb nuferer Staats
*
verfaffung entflicht, anguwenben finb.
^an einigte fich bei jener 23orverfammlung bahin, eine ber Sadh
*
läge enttyredjenbc 23orfteHung an bie f. Staatsregierung §u entwerfen
unb biefelbe einer größeren Sln^al;! g lei dl; ge f i nn ter — befonberS ein
*
¿ulabenber — Wänne^ gur Kenntnisnahme, Billigung unb Unterzieh
*
nung verwiegen. 3^ ^er bamals verfammelten sperren, unb ¿war
£err ißrofeffor Dr. ópuber unb óperr Staatsanwalt Streng, er
*
Harten, fich ber Aufgabe unterstehen ¿u woden, ben Inhalt ber von
uns bef^loffenen 23orftedung in firdlich=religiöfer unb Staatsrechtlicher
Sejiehung näher ¿u erflären unb ¿u beleuchten. Bugleich würbe ein
Organ gewählt, welchem bie Leitung ber ftatt¿ufinbenben ©crfammlung
obliegen foKte unb weldjeS heute vor 3h«en ¿u erfdjeinen bie (Shre hat.
Weine geehrten Herren I Snbem ich Sie Samens bes Gomités
auf’S $er¿lid;fte begrübe, entnehmen wir mit ^reube unb ©enugthuung
1*
�4
au§ her ¿ahlreichcn 23etheiiigung an her heutigen SBerfammlung, bafj
wir ber guftimmung einer feijr namhaften „ßafyl intelligenter Wlänner
au§ aHen klaffen ber gcbilbeten Söevölferung gu . nuferem — wie ich
glaube — voUtommen gerechtfertigten Streben fid)er fein bürfen.
Ra<h btefen wenigen Sßortcn labe ich £>errn ißrofeffor Dr. §uber
ein, bie non ihm in DluSficht geftellte Erörterung tunbgeben.^u wollen.
ißrofeffor Dr. ^uber:
'’Reine Ifodjgecljrten Herren! Facta loquuntur! St^atfa^en mögen
fyredjen 1 3$ erlaube mir, auf lur^e 3eit $hre Dlufmerf famteit auf bie
bebeutfamften Ereigniffe gu lenien, welche bie @efd)idjte ber fatholifdjen
Äir^e feit ben lebten gtoei SDecennien ungefähr bezeichnen, unb überlaffe bann ^nen felbft bas Urtljcil, ob bie Bewegung, wie fie feit
bem ißontififat ißiuS IX. namentlich gegen bie mobernen §reiheits=
^nftitutionen begonnen ljat, noch weiter fortgefe^t werben foU — ¿ur
Sdjäbigung nuferer religiöfen Eewiffen, ¿ur Sdjabigung unferer ¡politU
fchen, focialen unb wiffenfdjaftliclsen Kultur, ober ob Sie mit uns cnt=
fd^loffen finb, tiefer ^Bewegung ein entfdjiebeneS „$alt" zugurufen.
DReine sperren! Rls ißius IX. bas ißontifilat antrat, ba war bie
Hoffnung rege, bafj nun einmal ein liberaler -Rann in bie (Reihe ber
Rad)folgcr bcS. 1)1. IßetruS eingetreten fei. £>ie holüif^en Reformen
nämlich, bie ißiuS im Äirdjenftaat in’S SBert fe^te, ermutigten auch
gu ber Hoffnung auf Reformen in ber Jtirche. Dlber wer tiefer gufah
unb bie erften SHIoiutionen unb Runbf Treiben $iuS’ IX. näher in’S
Dinge fafjte, bem war bie Erunblofigteit tiefer Hoffnung unmittelbar
Har. SDie erfte Enctyclica ißiuS IX. (vom 9. Dior. 1846) enthielt eine
Sßieberholung ber berüchtigten Enchclica EregorS XVI vom Saljre 1832,
worin bie ißrefifreiheit, bie EewiffenS = unb ElaubenSfreiheit als eine
ißeft ber menf glichen EefeHfchaft verworfen worben waren. ?lls bie
Revolution in Rom ißinS IX. ins Ertl nach Eaeta trieb, gerieth er
hier voHftänbig in bie ^änbe ber ^efulten. IXm Reformen, wie fie vom
Ecifte beS ^al)rl)unberts geforbert finb, innerhalb ber fatholtfchen jetrehe
anjubahnen unb auszuführen, ba^u hätte freilich ein weiter SSlicf über
bie Söeltlage, über bie $cit mit ihren iBcbürfniffen unb berechtigten
$orbermtgen gehört, bajit wäre eine ganz anbere ^enntni^ be§ SBcfenS
unb ber Ecfcijichte ber Kirche notl)Wenbig gewefen, als RinS IX. auf
�5
tialienifcbem SSoben unb burch eine, bürftige thcologifihe Silbung erhalten
hatte. $ür uns in ©eutfchlanb würbe bie ^errfchaft, welche bie ^efuiten
über ißiuS IX. gewannen, balb bemerfbar. £)ie in Italien gegrünbefe
berüchtigte ^ßettfcljrift Civiltà cattolica würbe auch in einer beutfdjen
Ausgabe bei uns ein^ubürgern berfucht; aber biefe fanb auf unferm
Boben deinen rechten Slntlang ltnb ging feljr balb wieber ein. £>afür
aber gab (ich ein anbereS fatl)olifdßej§ ©rgan, ber in sIRainj erf^einenbe
„föatholif", ba^u h^, bie 3been ber Civiltà in ©eutfchlanb ¿u ber=
breiten, Um biefe $eit — int 3apre 1849 ungefähr mag es gewefen
fein — fähigen bie ^efuiten ihre SBurgen am iRhein auf/ wnb nutt
gewahren wir balb einen heftigen stampf gegen bie fatholifch=theologifchett
^afultüten an ben beulten £wchfchulen. £)ie tbcologifche $alultat von
(Sieben würbe nach Wìain^ berlegt unb unter unmittelbare bifcpöfliche Slufflcht
gcfteHt; (Scnfuren, $crbä^tigungen unb WBregelungen-begannen gegen
Sßrofefforen ber Rheologie in Sßür^burg, ^teiburg, Tübingen, SöreSlau
unb SJiünchen. $n ber Civiltà begegnen wir ber bitterften Slnfeinbung
ber SBiffenfchaft; fie f^miht ben mobernen SSerfaffungSftaat mit feinen
$nftitutionen unb ^olitifc^ert Jtör^crfdßaften als „tobte« @ebein", fte
tmalü bie Uniberfitaten unb ^BilbungSanftalten beS beutfc^en SSolfcö
als ^fü^en boll peftilen^ialiter Sehren unb boll federi t en ©eftanteS.
3m 3al;re 1854 erlebten mir fobann bie ©ogmatifirung ber un=
befleckten ©mpfängnifs, — au<h ein Spmptom bon ber óperrfchaft beS
3efuitenorbenS in Dtom; benn ein übertriebener ^eiligen unb ^Reliquien;
*
Kultus, bor allem bie aberglaubifchefte ÜRarienberehrung gehört ja gu
ben charalteriftifchen ©igentaften bcSfelben. SDie bei biefer $eier in
¿Rom berfammelten 53if<höfe ftimmten unterwürfig bem neuen £>ogma
$u; Wer, mie ber SIbbé ßaborbe, bagegen ¿u proteftiren wagte, würbe
mit ©enSbarmen aus ber «Stabt gef^afft. 3n ben 2lHocutionen bom
3ahre 1861 unb 1862 wies ißiuS IX. mit Slbteu jebe SBerföhnung
beS ißapftthumS mit ber mobernen ßibilifation ¿urücf. 3m 3ahre 1864
ertien ber <SpHabuS, worin unter anberrn auSgefproben war, baff
bie Kirche bie SRacht tybt, äußeren $wang ansuwenben unb eine
birette wie inbircfte weltliche (Gewalt befifje, bafs bie Zapfte bie ©renjcn
ber ihnen bon ®ott gegebenen 9Racht niemals Übertritten haben, bafj
bie Immunitäten beS JtleruS nicht bur<h SSergünftigungcn unb £ßribi=
Icgien ber dürften unb ÜRagiftrate entftanben feien, fonbern auf
urfprünglichem göttlichem ^Rechte beruhten, bafj ®emiffenS= unb ©laubenS
*
�freipeit bermerflicp fei unb ber Sßapft jeben 23unb mit ben ¿been bet
mobernen ©ibilifation bon
meifen muffe.
3m ¿apre 1867 mürbe bab ©entenarium in'(Rom gefeiert, bei
meinem Slnlafj ¿um ©rftaunen aller gebilbetcn Jtatpoliten bie büfteren
©eftalten bon ¿nquifitoren alé nacpapmungbmertpe SSorbiíber cpriftlicper
Stugcnb auf bie Alitare gefteUt mürben. 33ei bem ©entenarium ber=
fpracpen bie 33ifd^öfe bem (ßapfte bolle ©bebien¿, unb (ßiub IX.
berpiefj ipnen bafür ein ©oncil. ©ab ¿apr barauf (1868) erfolgte bie
Sßermerfung ber öfterreicpifcpeu (Berfaffung unb halb bab (ßriefter=3ubiläum
beb (papfteb, mo er mepr alb jcmalb in eine fünftlicpe Sltmofppare bon
Hulbigungen eingepüllt mürbe unb boUenbb jeben freien (Blitf über bie
Weltlage unb über bab, mab ber Äircpe nbtpig mar, hedieren mufjte.
©nblicp am ©nbe beb ¿apreb 1869 tarn bab berpeifjene ©ondi. SRan muffte
in ber fatpolifcpen SBelt nùptb um bie Aufgaben, melepe biefem ©ondi
¿ugebacpt maren. SBenn in früheren ¿eiten ein ©ondi berufen mürbe,
fo gefcpap eb, um bie etma bebropte ©laubenbeinpeit in ber Ä'ircpe
mieberper¿ufteHen ober um uotpmenbig gcmorbene (Reformen bor¿uncpmen.
©ie fatpolifepe Sßelt mufjte in jenen ¿eiten, morurn cb fiep auf bem (Sondi
panble; biefjmal aber burften bie ©laubigen (Ricptb bon ben bcabfieptigten
©ntfipeibungen erfapren, bon bereu SInnapme naep menigen SRonaten
bab §eil iprer «Seelen bebingt fein follie, ©ie ©inlabungbbuKe erging
fiep in allgemeinen Slnbeutungen, bie Stpeologen, melepe naep (Rom be
rufen mürben, um bie (Borarbeiten für bab (Sonori ¿u maepen, mufften
ben ©ib beb San Ufficio ablegen, monacp jebe (Berle^ung beb ©epeirnniffcb mit ber «Strafe ber ©pcommunitation belegt ift.
So leitete fiep bab ©oncil alb eine grofje ¿ntrigue
ein, unb nur ber ©ffenper¿igfeit, ber vorlauten Dffenper¿igteit ber
Civiltà mar eb borbepalten, ben Scpleier über bie dbficpten ber ©urie
¿u lüften, ©iefer SIrtifel ber Civiltà (vom Februar 1869) bratpie
eine grofje Aufregung in bie gan¿e tatpolifepe 3Selt unb namentlich
burep ©eutfcplanb. ¿n bemfelben mürbe unb mitgetpeiff, bafj auf bem
©oncil bie papftlitpe Unfeplbarteit befiniri unb ein ueueb 2Rarien-©ogma
gemaept merben folie, unb ¿mar niept auf bem Söege freier, eept condliarifeper (Berpanblung, fonbern rafcp unb fummarifcp burep dffla=
mation. ©ie Senfation napm fo grofje ©imenfionen an, bafj ber beutftpe
©pibfopat tur¿ bor feiner (Romfaprt fiep genötpigt fap, bon $ulba aub
einen Hirtenbrief an bie beutfepen ^atpolifen ¿u erlaffen, morin ipnen
�7
bie SSerfiheruirg gegeben tourbe, bafj baS Sonett feine ©ogmen be=
fdjlieften werbe, bie nicht burch ben ©tauben unb baS ©ewiffen in bie
Jpergen alter ^atholifen eingef^rieben ftünben. Unb toie mir von ¿u
*
ijerläffiger «Seite erzählt toirb, gab ber £>err ©rjbifhof von 9Jiünhen=
^reifing unmittelbar vor feiner Weife noch am iöaljnljof feinem i^n
batyin begleitenben JbleruS baS ^erfprecfyen, nichts Weites von 9tom mit¿ubrmgen, fonbern in bem ©eleife ber alten bewährten ©laubenSlehre
ausbauern ¿u wollen.
Söenn bie SBifhöfe bie feit ber lebten 3eit f^ielenben ÜRahinationen,
bie, ih mödjte fagen, gleihfam unterirbifebe Sljätigfeit ber ^efuiten
Ratten fefjarfer prüfen wollen, fie toürben faum gezweifelt haben, bafé ber
berüchtigte 2Irtifet ber Civiltà bie Slbfidjteu ber Jturie aufbeefe. Schon
hatten nämlich bie ^efuiten burch bie ganje fat^olifc^e .Sßelt Vereine
$egrünbct, bie fih anheifhig machten, für bie Unfehlbarfeit ¿u toirfen,
unb ¿war fo fefjr bafür ju toirfen, bafs fie für ihre ©ogmatifirung
©ui unb «lut hingeben wollten. ÜRoh mehr hätten ben «ifhofen bie
Materien, weihe feit fahren auf ben gfrovinzial=©oncilien auf Eintrag
ber Jturie jur «erathung etngebracfjt toorben toaren, bie klugen offnen
tonnen. 2Iber fie haben biefs Allies überfeinen — wenigftenS gaben fie
fich ben SInfchein, es überfeinen ¡$u haben, unb fo famen fie unvorbe
reitet nach Otom jum ©oncil.
©S toar fo viel Stoff für bie «erhanblungen beffelben angehäuft,
ba^ mehrere «ifhofe, bie bem ©oncile beiwohnten, fonftatirten, bafj gehn
©oncilien vollauf mit ber «ewältigung beffelben ¿u thun gehabt hätten
*
Unb nun betrachten toir baS (Sonett felbft. — Schon burch bie
3 ufam men feeling toar ber Sieg in bie £anb ber Jturie gelegt;
benn 410—430 ganz juverlaffige, unbebingt ergebene «ifhöfe toaren
ihr burch biefelbe von vornherein gefiebert ©a toaren 143 «ifhöfe
aus bem Äirhenftaate, toelhe im ©aujen 700,000 Seelen vertraten,
wäljrenb z- 53. ber $ürftbifhof von «reSlau mit einer ©iöcefe von
1 Va Millionen Seelen nur über eine einzige Stimme zu verfügen hatte.
Ueberhau^t würben bie ztoötf WUionen beutfher föatholifeu nur burch
14 «ifhöfe vertreten. — ©a waren bann weiter 120 «ifhöfe in partibus, bereu ©iòcefen, wie man richtig bemerft hat, im ©rion ober im
Sirius liegen, ©azu famen noch 70 «ifhöfe ber ^rofmgauba unb
100 Prälaten aus bem übrigen Italien, weihe alle nah ^em SBinf
ber giurie ftimmten.
�8
Hiicßt minbcr war bie ©efchàftéorbnung alé ein infiniment
für ben Sieg ber ßurie berechnet. Heach berfclben tourben 5 Qommif
*
fionen aufgefteUt; bie ópatoptcommiffion aber, biejenige nämlich, toeïdje
barüber z« entf^eiben hatte, ob eingebrachte Anträge gur IBerathung
im ßoncil fommen foHten ober nicht, tourbe boni Zapfte felbft zufammen=
gefeßt. ©Benn biefe ßommiffion einen Eintrag für nicht guïâfëig er=
Härte, toanberte er einfach ad acta, unb ber 5lntragfteUer hatte nidjt
einmal bab Hiecht, feinen Eintrag bor ber ßommiffion felbft ¿u oer=
treten ober zu begrünben. Unb alb toenn bab 5llleb noch nicht l;iureidjenb gewefen märe, um ¡eben mißliebigen Eintrag an baê (Soncil gu
berlfinbern, hatte ber ^apft fictf noch befonberö bas Utecht borbehalten,
auch einen bereits bureß bie ©ommiffion gegangenen unb für zuläßig
erklärten Eintrag au£ eigener HRachtoolltommenheit zurücfzutocifen. ©ie
franjöfifcßen iöifdjöfe ^roteftirten gegen biefe ©efhäftSorbnung, fie er=
hielten aber feine Antwort ©ie fo wichtige ©ommiffion de fide tourbe
nur auö infallibiliftifcfyen ©heologen gebilbet; überhaupt gefdjaljeit alle
Söaljlen nach officiellen Siften.
2öab bie Ulula betrifft, worin bab (Soncil gehalten tourbe, fo
toar biefelbe für einen folgen 3tocc£ burdjaitê nicht geeignet. 3<h habe
bor mir eine Schrift: „La liberté du Concile et l’infaillibilité," aué
ber £anb eine« ber erften fircßlitßen Söürbenträger fyranfreidjb, welche
¿unächfi nur für bie 50 Äarbinale gebruett'tourbe, bamit bie barin
erwähnten ©hatfachen nicht zur weiteren tantniß tarnen, weil fie bem
3lnfeßen beá (Sonetts fdjaben mußten. 3a tiefer Sdjrift nun heißt cé,
baß ein Uarbinal um bie Glitte $ebruar ertlärt habe, baß er bon all
ben Hieben, welche bisher gehalten worben, nicht 40 SDBorte oerftanben
habe unb baß überhaupt wenigftcnS ein ©rittheil ber Sßcrfammlung
bon ben Hieben fein Sßort berftehen tonne.
)
*
©iefe Hieben bilbeten
aber auch feine eigentliche ©istuffion, fonbern es waren afabemifhe
Vorträge, oie fiel) ber Hieihe nach folgten. Söurbe aber wirtlich einmal
ein Htcbncr, wie Stroßmaper, Schwarzenberg, Jpapnalb u. 51. unan
*
genehm, fo fudjte iljm ber präfibirenbe Scgat baé SSort zu entziehen
ober cö tourbe bon ber HJtajorität baé fdjon auf bem (Sonett bon ©rient
gebrauchte Mittel wieber aufgenommen, nämlich ben mißliebigen Hiebncr
*) SIbgebructt bei ftot). ^rtebridh, Documenta ad illustrandola
Concilium Vaticanum anni 1870., 9WrbïtJtgen 1871 p. 129 sq.
�9
burcp Söutpgefcprei ¿u übertönen unb tpn ¿u ¿wtngen, bte ©ribüne ¿u
verlaffen. — Sftan fucpte es ben iöifcpöfen ¿u verbieten, fiep in Own=
gregationen ¿u verfammeln, es war ipnen nicpt erlaubt, ipre Sieben
brutfen ¿u laffen, fie durften überpaupt in ütorn feine Scprift gegen
hie Unfehlbarkeit brucfen laffen; eine Prüfung ber SUcptigfeit ber fteno=
grappifcpen 3Iuf¿eicpnungen war ipnen nicht geftattet. $u all’ bem tarn
aber auch noch baS $>erfonTtche (Singreifen beö ißapfteS, ber bie Slnpanger
ber Unfeplbarfeit auf alle mögliche Söeifc ermutpigte unb auS¿eicpnete,
bte ®egner berfelben aber gerabe¿u — es barf unb mu^ auSgefprocpett
werben — fchmäpte. Sitó man wäprenb ber peifjeit <3apreS¿eit IßiuS IX.
barauf aufmerffam inacpte, bafj unter ber ^ieberglut iliomö bie iöifüjöfe,
von benen bte meiften alt unb gebrechlich waren, bie fo wichtige §rage
über bie Unfeplbarfeit unmöglich in ber nötpigett geiftigen unb förperliehen SBerfaffung entfepeiben tonnten; ba foll — eö wirb von vielen Seiten
beftatigt — aus feinem Wtunb baS harte Sßort gefallen fein: „ehe
crepino tutti“.
Scpon im Januar 1870, naepbem baS (Soncil taum über ein
Sftonat verfammelt war, braepte bie SJtajorität ben Slntrag ein, es
möge baö 3nfaHibilitätö=Scheina vorgelegt werben, obwohl ber SReipen=
folge ber Materien gemafs vorder noch ßO Kapitel ¿u erlebigen gewefen
Waren. ©ie iöifcpöfe ber ÜRinorität proteftirten, aber auf ipre bei bem
Sßapft eiitgereicpte ißroteftation erhielten fie feine Slntwort. SDoch ja,
fie erhielten eine Slntwort! nämlich bie Slntwort, bafj im Februar eine
¿weite verfchárfte ©efcpaftSorbnung auferlegt würbe, worin bie conciliarifepe ^reipeiiStocp rnepr beeinträchtigt war, unb bafj fur¿ nach @r=
laff biefer ¿weiten ©efdjñftóorbnttng baS von ber Sftaforitat vielbegehrte
Schema von ber papftli<hen Unfehlbarfeit eingebraept wttrbe. ©amató,
meine yerren, ató biefe ¿weite ©efcpaftóorbnung octropirt würbe, er=
hoben fiep eine Slit¿apl von iöifcpöfen aus ^rantreiep, ©nglattb, ©eutfcpí
lanb, ©eutfcp--Ocftcrreicp unb Ungarn, unb unter btefen iöifchöfen war
auch ber fberr @r¿bifcpof von 2Rünchen-§reifing, ¿u einer iöorfteüung
gegen biefelbe. ^n biefer SßorfteUung, bie von mehr ató bOO Prälaten
unter¿eichnet würbe, finbet fiep folgenber ißaffuS: „Sßir finb in unferm
Oewiffen burcp eine unerträgliche Saft befepwert, bie üefumenicität beá
Concitó unb feine Slutoritat wirb burcp biefe neue (ScfcpaftSorbming
erfepüttert unb fönnte ató ber Sßaprpeit unb §re^he^ entbeprenb be=
�10
gtüeifeli unb angegriffen werben."
)
*
2IKeS baS, meine .Sperren, wa£
it 3^nen über ben (Stjaracter beS vatitaniften (Soncils foeben oorgeflirrt habe, wirb burt baS Beugnifj beS CrrgbiftofS bon Sßaris, beS VerfafferS ber Sdjrift „Sie lefcte Stunbe beS ßoncilS" voUftanbig.
beftätigt. erlauben Sie mir, Sie mit ein paar Steden aus berfelben
begannt gu machen.
)
**
„SBeldjer Seelenftarfe, helfet eS fyier, galten bie Viftofe
ber Minorität beburft, 7 lange Wlonate Ijinburdj, um uidjt
mübe gu werben, StUeS gu erbulben, 2IUeS gu berfudjen, ohne
bie gernljaltung beS 2IergerniffeS erreichen gu tonnen! eine
©cftäftSorbnung, ben erwiefenften dted)ten beS (Soncils ¿um £ro&
aufgegwungen, SluSftüffe, bie im Voraus gewählt waren, trügerifte
Stimmenabgaben, erbrüdenbe Vevormunbung, Verhanblungen
oljne Siegel unb 3iel, Slbänberungen im Verfahren, bie ebcnfiy
od.- widtüljriid? wie vervielfältigt waren; — fie liefeen biej; 2lHeS über
fit ergehen, in ber Hoffnung, burt iljre langmütige ®ebulb>
»■> benn bot eines £ageS i^re Veweife gur Einnahme gu bringen.
@S würbe tuen, off entließ verläftert gu werben, nic^t erfpart, unb
gleidjwoljl erhob fid) inmitten ber Verfammlung, in welcher man
fie ^äretifer unb ^offdjraugen nannte, niemals iljre Stimme in
Stufbraufen unb Unmutl). ^l)re diebner mußten mehr als einmal
bie diebnerbüfyne berlaffen, ohne bafs fie tve ©ebanfen barlegen,,
nof weniger iljre Uebergeugungen bert^eibigen burften, wäljrenb
bie Wljrfyeüt ohne Unterlaß baS dted^t fit vorbehielt, ungeftraft
il;re empörenben Uebertreibungen unb tre frevelhaften 2Ingüglit=
feiten gu vervielfaten. Vom erften dlnfange an warb es ja als
Sfitti erad)tet, bie VeweiSgrünbe ber SDbinberheit unabänberlit
gleit Veleibigungen entgegenguneljmen unb ttre Veleibigungen
gurüdgugeben an Stelle von VeweiSgrünbeu. — Selbft ihre Ver
wahrungen, fo würbig, fo bemütig unb bot in allweg gefehlt
begrünbet fie waren, berartigen Sftifjbräuten gegenüber, blieben
nitt blofe oljne Erfolg, fonbern felbft ohne Antwort."
*) ®a§ Oenftüd finbet fit in bent angeführten SBute Von Sßrof. griebr id),
p. 263.
**) Um bie SSerfianblung abgufürgen, trug ber Stebner biefe Stellen in ber
ißerfantntlung nitt Vor ; ba fie aber fttft Wittig finb, fügen wir fie betn
ftenographiften SBeritte bei.
�11
©er aSerfaffer lonftatirt bann freitet, frie bet ¿ßapft offentunbig
feine $anb bet fo befremblichen unb in bet Jtirdje fo unerhörten Um=
mäljung lieh; er fagt, bap bie ©efeUfchaft 3»efu burd)
Sntriguen
von vornherein baS ganje (Soncil fdjon fertig gemacht hatte unb baff bie
SHfdjöfe blofi berufen frorben waren, um ba§ Söert ber ^efuiten gut
¿u ^et^en, bafg bie (Surie auf febe SBeife bie Freiheit beS (SoncilS ein=
geengt unb vernichtet habe unb f^rid^t enblich ba§ fdjfrere Sßort auS:
„(Ss bietet bie tatholifche Äir<he uns heuie baS Schaufpiel
. eines (Soncils ohne Freiheit unb bie ¿öebrohung burch einen 3lbfolutiSmuS ohne Schranten."
)
*
5j
5lm 13. ^uli tarn enblich bie ¿Hbftimmung in ber (Seneralcongregation. 601 33ifc£ofe fraren anwefenb, 70, obfrohl in ¿Rom gegenwärtig,
hatten fich fron ber Sifjung fern gehalten. ¿Bon biefen 601 ¿Bifchöfen
ftimmten 88 mit Non placet, 62 mit placet juxta modum, bie ¿Rnbern,
ungefähr 450 Votirten fd^on bamals baS ©ogma. ©arauf tarn bie
feierliche Sifcung bes 18. <3>ulL $n biefer Sitzung erfreuen viele
23if<höfe ber 2Rinorität nicht, es fraren in berfeiben im (Sanken nur
535 ¿Bätet anfrefcnb. 55 ißifc^ofe ber ¿Minorität, barunter auch unfer
Jhochfrürbigfter ^>err (Sr^bifchof, haben vor ihrem ¿Weggänge ober ihrer
flucht aus ¿Rom noch ein Schreiben bem ¿ßapfte eingefchicbt, aus freierem
ich 3>hnen bie frichtigften Stellen mittheilen will:
„^eiligfter ¿Batet! <3n ber (Seneralcougregation vom 13. b.
gaben frir unfere Stimmen über bas Schema ber erfteit bogma=
tifchen (Sonftitution von ber Kirche ©huifti ab.
(Sfr. ^eiligteit ift begannt, bafj 88 ¿Bätet, gebrungen von
ihrem (Semiffen unb aus Siebe jur heil. Kirche, ihre
Stimme mit non placet abgaben, 62 anbere mit placet juxta
modum ftimmten unb enblich ungefähr 70 -von ber (Kongregation
abwefenb fraren unb fich bet Slbftimmung enthielten, ©agu tommt,.
bafj Slnbere tl;eils wegen J^rantheit, theilS aus anbern gewichtigen
<Srünben in ihre ©töcefen ¿urücfgelehrt finb.
So mürben (Sm. «Jpeiligfeit unb ber gangen SÖBelt unfere ¿Bota
offenlunbig unb marb conftatirt, von wie vielen ¿Bifchöfen
unfere ¿Rnfchauung gebilligt mürbe; auf biefe Söeife
*) Sie Sdjrtft ift in beutfdjer lleberfe^ung in -SRündjen bei SRanj 1870
etfdjtenen.
�12
erfüllten wir baS Blmt unb hie Pflicht, welche un£
obliegen.
$on jenem ¿Jeitpuntte an ereignete fiep aber gang
unb gar
was unfere Blnfchauung hätte änbern
tonnen; bagegen fielen viele unb ¿war äufjerft ge =
wichtige SDinge vor, welche uns in unferem BSorfafce
beftartten. deshalb ertlären wir, bad wir unfere be=
reits abgegebene 33ota erneuern unb beftätigen."
unb fie fügen ljinju, bad wenn fie in bie feierliche Simung gefommcn
toaren, fie auch bann nicht anberS getonnt hätten als ihre in ber
@eneral=@ongregation abgegebenen $ota ¿u betätigen.
So erlebte benn baS 19. ^ahrhunbert bas unerhörte Schaufpieh
bad bie alte BSerfaffung ber Jtircpe gebrochen unb ein SDogma aufge?
fteUt würbe, welches nach ben Blenderungen feiner eifrigften Anhänger
unb Interpreten ben Sßapft gerabe¿u ¿um SDalai-íama macht So er=
ilari ¿. 23. $ater §aber, bad ber Sßctpft bie brüte HRenfcpwerbung
©otteS fei, SJlfgr. von Segur, bad tofr ihn als ©IwtftuS anf©rben
verehren, unb fagt bie Civiltà, bad n)enn ber $apft nachbentt, ©ott
es ift, ber in ipm benft. in (Rom felbft würbe währenb beS ©oncils
über Remate folgenber Blrt geprebigt: ©h^ftu^ fa ber Grippe, ^priftuS
im BlltarSfatrament, ^hriftuS im (Batican. Unb, meine Herren, wenn
Sie bie frommen 23ilbchen ¿umSDogma ber Unfehlbarkeit gefcpen hätten,
welche aus fran¿0fifcher £)ffi¿in hetvorgingcn unb bamals in (Rom ver=
breitet würben, Sie würben geftaunt haben, bis ¿u welchem ©rabe man
bie ibolatrie, ben ©ö^enbienft mit (ßiuS IX. ¿u treiben wagte.
Bluch Böunber lied man in fran¿ófifchen (Ronnentlöftern burcp bie
Unfehlbarkeit wirten.
(löcrfen wir nun noch einen 23lict auf baS ^Benehmen unb bie
Saaten unfereS Herrn ©r¿bifchofS nach feiner (Rücffehr vom ©onciL
2,?agte er vielleicht vom Blnfang an mit freiem unb entfchloffenem SRutlje
bem infaUibilitätSbogma Beugnid ¿u geben? ©r wagte eS nicht, er
lied baS bctreffenbe Schema als (Beilage ¿um Sßaftoralblatte in feiner
£)iöcefe gleicpfam einfchmuggeln. — BUS bieS ohne böfe folgen von
Seiten ber tgl. baperifdjen Staatsregierung glücklich gelungen war, erlieft
*
ber $err ©rgbifcpof am IO. Januar — ich glaube, es ift bieS baS
©atum — einen Hirtenbrief, worin er baS neue (Dogma ben ©laubigen
feiner SDiöcefe ¿ur Blnnaprne mittheilte. — ^Bekanntlich würbe bem H^n
�13
^¿bif^of fogleicp nacp her Publikation bitfcS Hirtenbriefes öffentlich
naipgcwiefcn, bafj bie gan§e Slrgumentation, womit er baS neue ©ogma
begrünbete, auf Sftifverftänbniffe ber pl. ©epW un^ auf gefälfcpte
Beugniffe fiel) ftüpe. —
ber Herr ©^bifepof barauf geantwortet,
hat er barauf ¿u antworten vermocht? — ©r tonnte es nidpt- —
traurigfte oon allen 511 tenftücfen aber, bie oon ber piefigen ergbifdjöfticljcn
Äanglei ausgegangen finb, ift offenbar baS lepte, ber gegen ©öUinger
gerichtete ¿Hirtenbrief.
©eftatten Sie mir nur noep einige Minuten, meine Hcrren’ — ©$
finb brei Punkte in biefem ntrtenbricfe, bie
^-u9e faffen
muffen, wollen Sie unfern Herrn ©^¿bifepof richtig würbigen. ©er
Herr ©^bifepof fagt:
„1) ©er Perfaffer (©öUinger) verlangt, bafj ihm geftattet werbe, in
einer Perfammlung von iöifcpöfen ober ©pcologeu ben beweis ¿u
'
liefern, baf bie ©laubcnSbcfrete ber IV. Sitzung bcS Patikanifcpcn
©oncils Weber in ber i)eil. Scprift, wie fie bie jtirdpenväter ver=
ftanbeu, noch in ber Ueberlieferung nach itjrer äepten ©efepiepte
enthalten feien, bafj (entere vielmehr burep erbrütete ober entfteKte
Urkunben gefälfcpt worben fei, unb baf bie nämlichen ©etrete im
Söiberfprucpe mit älteren tircplicpen ©ntfcpeibimgen fiepen.
3lun liegt aber pier, nicht etwa eine §rage vor, welche erft
¿u entfepeiben, barum ¿uvor forgfältig 311 prüfen wäre, ©ie Sache
ift bereits entfliehen; ein allgemeines, reeptmäfig berufenes, frei
verfammelteS, vom ©berpaupte ber Jiircpe geleitetes ©oncil
hat nach forgfältiger Prüfung bie katpolifcpe ßepre vom Primate
beS römifepen papfteS erläutert, formulirt unb befinirt."
iöemerten Sie, meine Herreu/ bie Bweibeutigteit! ©er Herr ©rä
*
bifepof wagt nicht ¿u fagen: „ein frei beratpenbeS ©oncil,“ fonbem
er fagt: „ein frei verfammelteS ©oncil" unb pofft offenbar mit
biefer ^weibcutigfeit über bie Schwierigkeiten pinweggufeplüpfen. 5lber
wie pätte er auch [«gen tonnen „ein frei beratpenbeS ©oncil,“
naepbem er im SJiärg vorigen $apreS ¿u Htorn in ber bereits erwähnten
Porftellung gegen bie ¿weite ©efcpäftöorbnung mit anbern Pifcpöfen er=
klärt patte: „äRein ©ewiffen ift unerträglich befepwert burep bie ¿weite
©efcpäftSorbnung, benn baS ©oncil könnte wegen berfelben als ber
Sßaprpeit unb greipeit entbeprenb angegriffen werben."
©er Hetr ©^bifepof fährt in feinem Hirtenbrief alfo fort:
�w2) ©ollinger behauptet, bafj es [ich ^ter um eine rein gerichtliche
^rage Ijanble, welche benn auch einzig mit ben Ijiefür ¿u ©ebote
ftehenben Mitteln unb nach ben Regeln, roeicf;e für jebe hiftorifte
^orfcpung, jebe ©rmitttung vergangener, alfo ber ©efdjidjte ange=
poriger Sljatfadjen gelten, bejubelt unb entfliehen Werben muffe,
©uburd) ift aber bie ^iftorifd^e ^orftnng über bie Jtirdje ge=
fteHt, es werben bie ©ntfcheibungen ber Kirche bem lebten unb
entfdjeibcnben Urteile ber ©efdjichtsfchreiber preiSgegeben, es wirb
baburdj baS göttlidj verorbnete Sehramt in ber ^irdje befeitigt unb
alle tatholifdje 2öalgheit in $rage gefteUt."
(Sä ift, meine Herren, ein bemerkenswertes Bufammentreffen,
bafj gerabe heute vor einem B^t ber $err ©r^bif^of von Mnd)en=
*
Reifing mit auberen Siftöfen ber Minorität eine Sorftedung be^üg
*
lid) beS UnfehlbarfeitS-OogmaS an ben ißapft gelangen liefj, in welchem
er felber auSfpricht, baff burd; falfdje ©efchittSe^ahlung bie ißapfte
getänftt worben feien über ben Umfang ihrer W7att, baff fie burdj
falfdpe ©eftittSe^ählung ¿u bem ©tauben verführt worben feien,
tre Vorgänger hätten Könige unb dürften abgefe^t;' ©aS Beugnift
ber ©efdjichte ruft er alfo felber an in biefer f^rage, worin es ftch
ljanbelt um bie Seftimmung ber dRachtgrennen ber Zapfte. ©er Herr
^¿biftof fagt bann in biefem Oenftüde nod), baff bie Sülle Unam
sanctam, in weiter Sonifaj VIII. bie Obergewalt beS ißapfteS über
alles weltliche Aperrfdfertljum auSfpridjt, wirflict? ben Sinn ljabe, bafc
bem Zapfte bie abfolute Jperrfdfaft in ber SBelt, über baS ©eiftlicfye
fowopl, wie aud; über baS üöeltlic^e eigne, unb baff Beber, ber bie
©efdjichte biefer Sude ftubirt, gefielen müffe, bafg baS Seftreben jener
©Geologen, welche berfelbeit einen auberen, milberen Sinn geben wollen,
ein verkehrtes unb irrtümliches fei. Sllfo ber §err ©rjbiftof beruft
ßt für baS Serftaiibnijg ber Sude Unam sanctam ¿um ¿weiten ddale
auf baS Beugnifj ber @eftid)te. ©aS Bcuguijj ber ©eftitte, baS vor
einem Balge, nämlich am 10. Slpril 1870, ihm nod; begolten'hat, gilt
tm heute — am 10. Slpril 1871 — in berfeiben §rage Nichts mehr.
(Sewegung.)
©üblich Iwren unb beurteilen Sie mit mir noch ben britten ißunkt
in biefem intereffanten Hirtenbrief:
„©odinger, l;ei^t es weiter, erklärt, baff bie ©ecrete vom
18. Bult b. B^' fchledtf^iu unvereinbar feien mit ben Serfaffun
*
�15
gen her europaifcpen Staaten, insbefonbere mit bet baper» 23er
*
faffung, ja, bafj btefe ßepre, an beren folgen baS alte beutfcpe
SReicp gu ©runbe gegangen fei, falls fie bei bem tatpol. Opeile
bet beutfcpen Nation perrfcpenb mürbe, fofort aucp ben Jteim eines
unpeilbaren SiecptpumS in bas eben erbaute neue Hieicp ver
*
pflangen mürbe."
©egen biefe gänglicp irrtpümlicpe UnterfteHung unb fehr ge=
paffige Slnflage proteftiren 2öir piemit mit lautefter (Stimme unb
erklären fie als eine unbegrünbete 23erbäcptigung ber tatp. «Stbcpe,
ipreS OberpaupteS, iprer 23ifcpöfe unb iprer fammtlicpen ©lieber,
melcpe nie aufpbren merben, bem ^aifer gu geben, maS beS «StaiferS
ift unb ©ott, maS ©otteS ift."
2Iber, meine «Sperren! ^n berfelben SBorfteKung vorn 10. 2Ipril
1870 pat ber «Sperr ©rgbifcpof eine gang entgegengefepte Uebergeugung
auSgefprocpen; Sie müffen mir erlauben, $pnen bie begüglicpen Stellen
barauS vorgulefen, bamit Sie felbft urtpeilen tonnen. Oie Stellen
lauten:
„Oie $rage über bie päpftlicpe Unfeplbarteit berührt bie bem
cpriftlicpen 23olfe von ben ©eboten ©otteS gu gebenbe Untermeifung
unb berüprt birect baS 23erpältnijg ber tatpolifcpen Sepre gur bür
*
gerlicpen ©efeüfcpaft.
23iS ins 17. ^aprpunbert pabcn bie Sßäpfte geleprt, bie @e=
malt in meltlicpen Oittgen fei ipnen von ©ott gegeben unb fie
paben bie entgegengefepte Meinung vermorfen.
©ine anbere Sepre aber über baS 23erpaltni^ ber tircplicpen
©emalt gur ftaatlicpen tragen mir mit faft allen 23ifcpöfen ber
tatpolifcpen 23Belt bem cpriftlicpeit SSolte vor, namlicp: eine jebe
von beiben'©emalten, bie bürgerliche mie bie geiftlicpe,
ift in ben ipr anvertrauten Oingen unter ©ott bie
pbcpfte unb in iprem 2Imte ber anbern nicpt unter
*
morfen.
2öaS mir von bem 23erpältnifs ber tircplicpen ©emalt gur ftaat=
licpen leprcn,ift nicpt neu,fonbern uralt unb burcp bie Heber
*
einftimmung ber pl. 23ater unb bie SluSfprücpe unb
23eifpiele aller Sßäpfte bis auf ©regor VII. beftärtt, mefj
*
palb mir nicpt gmeifeln, bajj es volle Sßaprpeit fei; benn ©ott
foH verpüten, bafj mir megen bereiten 23ebürfniffe ben urfprüng
*
�16
ttd^cnSinnbe§göttlichen® efe^c«fällen! ©ennoch muffen bie
(gefahren angejeigt merben, melche für bie Ätrdje au«
einem ©ecrete entfielen merben, ba« mit biefer unferer ßelfre nidjt übereinftimmen mürbe.
@5 entgeht Dlicmanb, bafs e« unmöglich ift, bie Staatliche
©efeüfchaft nach ber in ber 53uUe U. S. feftgefc^ten siegel ju
reformiren. ®lei<hmohl fann burdf ben SSeäffel ber -¡Dichtungen
unb menfdjlidfen (Einrichtungen meber ein von ©oft verliehene«
Dted)t noch bie biefem entfprechenbe
aufgehoben merben.
Söenn ber römifche Sßapft im l;l- Wer bie ©emalt empfangen hatte,
melche figürlich bitrch bie 2 Schmetter bezeichnet wirb, unb mie in
ber 53uHe Cum ex Apostolatus officio verfid^ert wirb, au«
göttlichem Diechte über bie Sßölfer unb ¿Reiche bie $üüe ber @e=
malt innehatte; bann ftünbe e« ber ^treffe nidpt frei, btejs ben
©laubigen ¿u verbergen. . . SBare aber ber chriftliche Unterricht
auf biefe Art umgeftaltet, fo mürbe e« menig nü^en, weitläufig
¿u versichern: ma§ gu ber ©emalt be« hl- Stuhle« im ¿^eitUdjen
gehöre, halte fich in ben ©rennen ber Theorie unb fei von feiner'
lei ©emicht rücfficbtlich ber Angelegenheiten unb ©reigniffe;
ißiu« IX. bemfe nicht entfernt baran, bie Senfer ber Staatlichen
Angelegenheiten ab^ufe^en. ^ohnlachenb mürben bie ©egner aut'
morten: bie ipäpftlichen Urteile fürchten mir nicht; aber nach langen
unb verriebenen Verkeilungen ift e« enblich evibent gemorben,
baf? jeber ^atholif, beffen Söerte burdf ben ©tauben, ben er be=
tennt, geleitet merben foUen, ein geborener fyeinb be« «Staate« ift,
ba er fich im ©emiffen für gebunben erachtet, foviel er tann bci=
¿utragen, bamit alle Dleicße unb Voller bem rörnifelfen ißapfte un=
termorfen merben."
<So ber ^err (Sr^bifchof vor einem 3ahre1 (©eo^e (Senfation.)
Unb nun, meine Herren, laffen Sie mich gum Schluffe gelangen!
liefen ©eift, ber ba« Goncil ^geleitet hat, nennt man in Hirtenbriefen
ben heiligen ©eift! 6« ift aber ber ©eift ber ©emalt unb ber ßüge,
e« ift ber ©eift ber Unmiffenheit unb ber Feigheit, (Vravo!) Söenn
biefi ber ©eift mdre, ber von Anfang an bie Kirche geleitet hat, menn
biefj ber heil- ©eift märe, bann märe über bie dh>riftliche unb tatholifche
Kirche ba« fd^ärffte VermerfitngSurtheil auSgefprochen! ©« ift aber
nicht ber heilige ©eift!
�—
17
—
SD?.
VBaS fo fehr eine Vewegung gegen bie Uebergriffe beS
.^cfuitiSmuS erfcßtöert, baS ift bte reltgtöfe ©leichgiltigfeit. Aber, tu.
es ^anbelt fidj gut Stunbe nicht mehr barum, ob ein ©ogma
me^r ober weniger, bie Alternative' ift ganj anders gcftettt. ®S hatt'
beit fleh darum, ob Sie fleh biefe brutale Vergewaltigung 3hrcS religiöfen
©cwiffens gefallen laffen wollen, ober ob Sie für fi<h unb im Flamen
<3ijrer Binder mit uns gegen biefe ßaft, bie man ben ©ewiffen aufgu=
legen verfugt, fi<h ¿ur Abwehr ergeben wollen. Von ber Unterwerf=
ung Ratten fte nicpt einmal einen ©auf, wie ¿. V. bie Civiltà ¿eigt,
welche in ihren lebten heften über bie Vif^öfe ber Vänorität, bie jefct
¿u Äreu^ gefroren finb, fleh in ber Verhöhnung ergeht, bafj auf bem
(Sondi einige Schwachtöpfe ¿war bie VSaljrljeit ber UnfehlbarteitSlehre
nicht einfdjcn wollten, haft fte aber nun hinterdrein doch noch ber ljeil.
®eift erleuchtet habe.
Alfo, m.
um beS religiöfen ©ewiffenS Witten, um nuferer
ftaatsbürgerli^en unb focialen ttledjte, ja überhaupt um ber (Sultur
witten, nehmen Sie in biefer brenn enben Sa^e Partei, ¿iehen Sie fidj
nicht in bie Vcquemlichtdt beS Privatlebens ¿urücf, geftatten Sie nicht,
bafj fchon gleich in ben erften £agen, wo baS neue beutfche ttleich cm«
Vorblüht, ber Jteim einer tiefen Spaltung in baSfelbe gelegt werbe.
Sie wiffen es aus ber ©efhichte, bafj ber unglücffelige 30jähr. förieg
vor^ugsweife ben SRa^inationen ber ^efutten ¿u verbanden ift; laffeh
Sie barum, nachbem wir einig geworben finb in £)cutfchlanb, uns
nicht abermals trennen burch bie VZacpittationcn ber ^efuiten ! (Stür=
mifcher Veifatt.)
Staatsanwalt Streng:
Vßotten wir uns, meine Herren, über bie politifdSen folgen ber
UnfehlbarteitSlehre Klarheit verfdjaffen, fo müffen wir tlar fein über
bas Verhältnis ¿wiffen Kirche unb Staat vor Vertünbung biefer ßehre
unb über bie Veränderungen, welcpe bte Verfaffuttg ber Kirche burch
bicfelbe erlitten hat.
3n Vapern fanben bie Verhangen ¿wiffen Jtir^e unb Staat
ihre gefebliche ttlegelung burch bas (Soncordat unb burch bie Verfaffung,
tnSbefondere bie ¿weite Vellage ber VerfaffungSurtunde, baS f. g. ttteli=
gionS=@bict.
£>aS (Soncordat, welches ¿unächft eine ttleipe von organifchen Ve
*
�18
ftimmungen über (Sintheilung bcr ©iojefen, (Befolgung ber Kapitel unb
Pfarreien, (Sinfünfte unb ©otirung ber kirchlichen 9(emter enthält, gd
*
Währt ben (Bifchöfen bie iBefugnifj, in ßeitung ber ©iojefen aüeS baS
*
jenige auS¿uüben, waS ihnen vermöge tyreS £irtenamteS haft ber (Sr=
flärung unb Slnorbnung bcr fanonifehen Sa^ungen nach ber gegen
*
wärtigen unb «vom ^eiligen Stuhle betätigten Kirch enbiSciplin ¿ufteht
2llS einzige aber wichtige (Garantie gegen eine bem «Staate feinbltdEje
Ausübung ber Kirchengewalt verleiht eS bem König auf ewige 3eiteH
baS <3nbuít, gu ben erlebigten (BifchofSftühlen (Seiftli^e ¿u ernennen,
Welche bie nach ben fanonifehen Sa^ungen ^bazu erforberitten Sigett
*
fdjaften befi^en, unb welchen ber 5ßaf)ft bie fanonifche (Sinfe^ung er
*
t^eiten wirb. ©ie (Bifchöfe Ijaben bem König ben (Sib ber ©reue gu
leiften.
©ie SBerfaffungSurfunbe ftcllt in gerechter Söürbigung ber fjoliti
*
fd^en (Srrungenfchaften ber Neuzeit an ihre <Spi£e bie Freiheit ber ®e=
wiffen unb gewiffenhafte ©Reibung unb Schätzung beffen, waS beS
Staates unb ber ^ircl;e ift; fie beftimmt, bafs Kirchenämter ober
Sßfrünben nur (Singebornen ober verfaffungSmä^ig (Raturalifirten erteilt
werben fönnen, ftatuirt bie Oieichheit ber bürgerlichen unb ¡politifcfjen
(Rechte ber in bem Königreich beftehenben brei dfjriftiichen KirchengefeÜ
*
fdhaften, wahrt bem Staate baS oberhoheitliche Schuh unb SluffichtS
*
*
recht auch in rein geistlichen ©egenftänben ber (Religionslehre unb beS
©ewiffenS, ben Staatsbürgern bie Berufung an bie (RegicrungSgewalt
wegen W^brauchS ber geistlichen ©ewalt unb verbietet bie (Berfünbung
unb ben (Boüzug ber (Berorbnungen unb ©efche bcr Kirchengewalt ohne
vorgängige (Sinficht unb ohne baS Sßlacet beS Königs.
©urch bie (Berfaffung ift bemnach ber Kirche feineSWegS jene
Stellung gewährt, welche bie meiften Kirchenrechtslehrer als bie ihr ge=
bührenbe bezeichnen, inbem fie barauf hinweifen, bajs bie Kirche weit
älter fei, als alle Staaten ber (Gegenwart unb bafj bie (Rechte bcr Kirche
burch bie viel jüngeren Staatsgewalten in feiner Sßeife beeinträchtigt
werben bürften. SRan fann baS verfaffungSmäjnge (Berhältnifj ¿wifchen
Staat unb Kirche nicht einmal ein gleichberechtigtes nennen, bie Kirchen
*
gewalt ift ber Stuf ficht unb Roheit beS Staates voKftänbig unterworfen.
fragen wir, wie fi«h biefe ©efe^e in ber (ßraris bewährten, fo
finben wir feineSWegS einträchtiges ¿ufammengehen ber beiben ©ewalten
auf bem gefefjltch gebahnten Sßeg. ©er Orunb liegt nahe; baS (Son
*
�19
mar bereits im Dftober 1817 von her baßerifelfen Regierung
ratificirt unb ljatte beit ß^arafter eines voll verpfHdftenben Völkerrechts
lidfen 33ertrageß erlangt; allein eß mürbe erft am 26. üftai 1818 ¿u=
:gletch mit ber 33erfaffung in 33aßerit vertünbigt unb fottte nadf ber
außbrüctlidfen 33eftimmung beß iReligionßebifte^ nur in 3Infehung ber
burdf bie 33erfaffung nicht geregelten inneren Jtirdfenangelegeitheiten
maffgebenb fein. Äöniglidfe ©etlarationen verfudfieit eine Söfung ber
Sßtberfprüdfe in ben ®ruitb$ügen beiter ®efe^e; allein einfeitige S?etla=
rationen beß Königs tonnten 33erfaffungßgefehe nicht meljr in autl)en=
tifdfer 3Beife interpretiren. Stuf ber anbern Seite ftrebten bie 33ifdföfe
fortmälfrenb, beit Stanbpuntt beß (Soncorbatß. ber Jtirdfe §u fiebern.
•¡Rodf am 8. 2Ipril 1852 erfdfien eine töniglidfe 33erorbnuitg, meldfe
in ber bisher geübten ftaatlidfen 3lufftdft (Erleichterungen gemährte, ben
(Einfluf; ber 33ifdföfe auf bie Spulen erhoffte, im Uebrigen aber baß
bberfte 3Iuffidftßredft unb baß ?ßlacet außbrücflidf mährte.
33etrad;ten mir bie 33e$tehungen ¿mifdfen föirdfe unb Staat, mie
fte je|t tlfeilß auf gefe^lidfer (Erunblage beruhen, tlfeilß in ber ißrariß
•ftch geftaltet Ifaben, fo finben mir bie in bem Hteligionß^bifte alß
Weltliche ©egenftänbe erklärten (Rechte, mie
33. bie ©eridftßbarfeit
über bie Oeiftlidfen in bürgerlichen 9tedftßftreitigteiten unb Straffadfen,
faft burdfgehenbß unbeftritten in §änben ber Staatßregierung; meniger
ftdfer unb unbeftritten aber ift baß 33erhältnifi ¿mifdjen ber ^irdfeiv unb
Staatßgemalt bezüglich ber in bem (Reltgionß-©bitt aufgeführten @egen=
ftänbe gemifchter Slatur, mie j. 33. ber (Errichtung geifttiefeer @efed=
{«haften, ber organifcheit 33eftimmungen über geiftlic^e 33ilbungßanftal=
ten, mälfrenb bezüglich ber inneren .ftirdfeiiaiigelegenheiten, mie ber
©laubenßlehre, beß religiöfen 33oltßiinterri<htß unb ber ^irdfenbißcipltn,
bie oerfaffungßmafugen (Garantien, baß oberfte Sdfuh= unb 3luffichtß=
rechtf baß ißlacet unb bie 33erufung megen ülii^braudjß ber geiftlidfen
bemalt, an fidf fchon von felfr gmeifelhafteni SBertlf maren unb mie
(Ereigniffe ber iicueften ^eit bemeifeit, füglich mit Sdjufimaffen ver=
^leidfbar finb, bie ein 33linber tragt, ber feinen @egner nicht fielft unb
fidf beßhalb auch feiner SBaffeit nicht mit (Erfolg gegen ilfn b.ebieiten
faitn.
,,
3Iuf biefem Oebiete ift molfl bie merthVoUfte (Garantie baß burdf
baß (Eoncorbat bem Könige eingeräumte (Recht ber (Ernennung ber
33ifcfyofe. £)iefeß (Ernennungßrccht fefct ben Völlig in bie Sage, bie
�20
bcfte löürgfdjaft auf einem nicht unbeftritteuen Gebiete gegen unberech
*
tigte unb bcm Staate gefährliche Slnmafjungcn unb Ucbergriffe ber
^irchengewalt ¿u finben in ber (Gewiffenhaftigteit unb bem Sßatriotiö=
mub beb SNanneb feiueb SSertrauenb unb feiner SSafyl. Keffer alb bab
oberfte Sdjutj unb Nttffichtbrcdjt ber Staatbregierung fChü^t bie 3n=
tereffen beb Staates bie SSaljl eineb S3ifChofb, ber auch auf bem bi=
fdjöflidjen Stuhle fich alb Singehöriger beb baperif^en Staateb fühlt,
ber bie Sehren beb (Svangeliumb in bem milben unb verföhnlichen Sinne
beb göttlichen Stifterb, nicht in bem finftern unb abftofienben ®eift
vergangener ^ahrpunberte erfafjt, bie ^örberung beb wertthätigen chrift=
liehen Sinneb ben alten unvcrbaulichen (Glaubenbftreitigfeiten vorgieht
unb alb feine fdjönfte Aufgabe bie Erhaltung beb confeffionelXen ^rieben«,
bab einträchtige unb fcgenbvoUe gufammenwirfen ber geiftlidjen unb
weltlichen Ntadjt anftrebt.
SDiefe S3ürgfd;aft ift burch bie neue (Glaubenslehre vernichtet, eb
gibt feine Sifdjöfe mehr im Sinne ber alten ^ird;enverfaffung. SDie
apoftolifche (Gewalt lag in ber Einheit unb (Gefammtheit ber Sifdjöfe,
alb ber Nachfolger ber Npoftel. Seber ®ifd)of war in feiner ©iöcefe
ber felbflftänbige ©räger feineb apoftolifchen Slmteb, er hatte in eigner
Sßerantmortlichteit für (Erhaltung ber djriftlichen Sehre, ben (Gottebbienft
unb für bie ©ibciplin in ber ©iocefe ¿u forgen. ©em ^apfte a^b
bem Nachfolger beb erften ber Npoftel ftanb nur eine befoubere Sluto=
rität in ber Kirche ¿u, feine (Gemalt mar aber nicht iinbeftfjränf't, fie
mar befchränft burch bie gebotene ©hrfurebt vor ben ötumenifchen (£on=
cilien unb bttrCh bie anerkannten Nccpte beb bifcpöflichen Slmteb, unb
ben Nubflüffen ber päpftlicpen (Gemalt gegenüber mar Nemonftration
unb bei offenbaren Ungerechtigkeiten fogar bab Necpt beb paffiven
SSiberftanbeb begrünbet.
äöichtige bie JHrCpe berührenbe §ra9en un^ (Glaubenbftreitigteiten
mürben auf ben (Soncilien beraten unb entfliehen, meldje, bie (Ge=
fammtintelligeng ber Äircpe barftellenb, vom ^Sapfte berufen, nach heri
tömmliCher (Gefchäftborbnung geleitet, in freier SScrathung unter ber
Sanction beb ^ßapfteb SBefdjlüffe feftftellten, welche bie (Gemiffen ber
(Gläubigen verpflidjteten.
©ab mar bie alte Jtircpenverfaffung, mie fie unb in ben Schulen
gelehrt mürbe, unb mie fie in ben SehrbüCpern bewährter fatholifCher
Seprer beb Jtirdjenredjtb bib jur Stunbe noch gelehrt wirb. Nocb un=
�21
ferm 6. September 1869 erklärten bie in §ulba verfammclten beutfchen
«Bifchöfe, bie allgemeinen Jtirchenverfammlungen, bie Bereinigung ber
Nachfolger ber Slpoftel um ben Nachfolger be« heiligen betrug, al« ba«
vorgüglichfte Mittel, bie befeligenbe Böal)rheit be« 6hriftenthum« in
ein hellere« Sicht gu fefcen unb fein heilige« ®efefe mirffamer in« Sehen
einguführeu.
$n berfelben ©rflärung fpricht man von ben grunblofcn Bcfchuk
bigungen gegen ben heiligen Bater, al« ob er unter bem ^influffe
einer «ßartei ba« (Soncil lebiglich al« Mittel benühen molle, um bie
«Nacht be« apoftolifchen Stuhle« über (gebühr gu erhöhen, bie alte unb
echte Berfaffung ber Jtirche gu änbern unb eine mit ber chriftlichen
Freiheit unverträgliche ^errfchaft aufgurichten. ©ie Bifchöfe verlern
bort, ba« Goncil merbe feine neuen unb feine anbern (grunbfähe auf
*
ftellen al« biefenigen, melche allen ^atholifen burch ben (glauben unb
ba« (gemiffen in« ^>erg getrieben feien, unb befennen al« ihren (glau=
ben, baß menn bie Nachfolger iß etri unb ber SIpoftel, ber
Sßaipft unb bie Bifihöfe, auf einem allgemeinen (Soncil
rechtmäßig verfammelt, in Sachen be« (glauben« unb be«
Sittengefe^e« (gntf «heibungen geben, fie burd) (gotte« §ür
*
ficht unb Beiftanb gegen jeben $rrthum fichergeftellt finb.
Sroh biefer feierlichen (Srflärungen unb bündigen Berfichcrungen
fehle bie Niehrheit ber auf bem (Soncil verfammelten Bäter eine un«
feither gang fremde Sehre burch unb gmar gegen eine fchon an fich fehr
bebeutenbe, noch mehr aber burch bie Bolf«gahl unb bie allgemeine Bil
*
buug ihrer SDiocefen gemichtige Slngahl von Bißhöfen. £>a« apoftolifdje
Slmt ruht nicht mehr in ber (gefammtheit ber Bifchöfe, fonbern allein
in ber ißerfon be« ißapfte«.
Nach ber neuen @laubeu«lehre Imi ber ißapft bie volle unb orbent
*
liehe Äirchengemalt in allen S£)iöcefen über alle (geiftlicheu unb Saien,
unb gmar bie unmittelbare (gemalt, unb menu er al« £irte unb Selber
ber gefammten Jtatholifen in Sachen be« (glauben« unb ber Sitten
2lu«fprüche erläßt, fo follen biefe 5Iu«fprüche au« fich al« ge* offenbarte Bßahrheiten gelten, ohne baß e« einer 3uftim=
mung ber Kirche, eine« allgemeinen (Soitcil« mehr bebarf.
Um eine bie (gemiffen ber Äatholiten verioflicßtenbe Sehre gu
ßhaffen, bebarf e« von nun an nicht mehr be« weitläufigen tilipparcvte^
eine« ßoncil«, nicht mehr ber mühevollen Berhanbluugen unb freien
�22
Veratpungen ber bie ®efammtintelltgenj ber Jtircpe repräfentirenben,
auf bem ©oucil verfammelten Väter, nicpt mepr ber nacp altem <£er=
fommen ¿u pflegenben Unterfufpung, ob biefe ßepre aucp überall unb
von allen ^atpolifen geglaubt werbe — alle biefe Garantien finb je^t
übe-rflüffig, ber 5ßapft öffnet feinen Dftunb unb, wag er fpricpt, ift göttlicite Sßaprpeit.
Unb wag foli in ^ufunft neben biefer vollen unmittelbaren @e=
Walt beg ißapfteg über alle fàircpen unb alle ©laubigen nocp bag
bifc^öflic^e Dlmt bebeuten? ©ie Vifcpöfe nennen fiep ¿war nocp bie
iftacpfolger ber SIpoftel, bie Vräger beg apoftolifcpen Slmteg; fie finb
eS aber nicpt mepr. Dieben bem unfehlbaren Zapfte gibt eg für einen
Vifcpof nach bem Sinn ber alten Äircpenvcrfaffung feinen ^ßlaß. £)ie
alten ^anbeftiften [teilten ¿um Veweig, baß ¿wei ^erfonen nicpt ¿u
gleicher $eit biefelbe Sache bcfißen tonnen, ben Sap auf, ubi ego sto
tu stare non potes, wo ich ftepe, fannft bu nicht flehen; benfelben
Sap müffen jept auch bie Vifcpöfe gegen fiep gelten laffen, ¿wei orbent=
liehe Vräger berfelben ©ewalt laffen fiep nicht beuten. £)ie Vifcpöfe
finb bur<h bie neue ©laubenglepre ¿u päpftlicpen ©ommiffären, ¿u
wiUenlofen SBe^eugen ber unermeßliepen päpftlicpen ©ewalt perab=
gewürbigt; ein Söiberfprucp gegen ben unfehlbaren ^ßapft wäre nicht
mehr bag von ben ßeprern beg ^irepenreeptg früher anertannte ffteept
ber Vifcpöfe, gegen päpftltcpe Dlnorbnungen ¿u renwnftriren, unb unter
Umftänben benfelben paffiveit SBiberftanb entgege^ufepen, fonbern bag
wäre SlbfaU vom ©tauben unb ^eßerei.
So ift eö wopl tlar unb bebarf feineg weiteren Veweifeg, baß
mit Vernichtung ber alten ^irepenverfaffung auch bie wichtige Vürg=
fepaft beg ©oncorbatg gegen eine bem Staate feinblicpe Slugübung ber
Äircpengewalt befeitigt ift. 2öag hilft eg, wenn ber Völlig einen noch
fo bewährten patriotifcp gefinnten Dftann ¿u bem erlebigten Vifcpofg=
ftuplc ernennt, wenn ber Vifcpof nicht allein in Sachen beg ©laubeng,
fonbern auch auf bem weiten ©ebiete ber Sitten ber fatpolifcpett Söelt
unbebingt bem Sßapfte folgen muß? 2ßag hilft ber @ib ber £reue, ben
bie Vifcpöfe in bie £änbe beg Äönigg leiften, wenn ber Vifcpof nur
bag willeulofe Sßeri^eug einer außerhalb beg Staateg refibirenben Dftacpt
ift, welcher bie ^ntereffen beg baperifepen Staateg an fiep fremb finb
unb bie bem «ftönig gegenüber teine eiblicpen Verpflichtungen übernom=
men hat? ftacp ber alten Äircpenverfaffung fonnte gegen aUenfaUfige
�23
|
Uebergriffe her papftlichen (Surie in baS @ebiet her meltlicfjen Regie
rungen — urib bie ©efchicpte bietet in biefer ^cjiepung viele iBeifpiele —
ber 53ifchof fid) auf fein apoftolifcheS 2lmt unb ben ihm für folche
§aHe immer fixeren iBeiftanb ber Regierung finden unb er blieb tro£ •
[eines TßiberftanbeS bod; SSifdjof; je^t mürbe ein berartiger Rerfubfr
fofort ben Wcunb beS unfehlbaren papfteS öffnen, einen RuSfpruch beS "
Wirten unb SeprerS ber Katholiken auf bem ungemeffenen $elbe ber
«Sitten ¿ur $olge haben, unb ein Rerfudj beS ißifdßofsS ¿um Söiber[taube mürbe genügen, ihn als einen vom fatholifdjen (glauben 2lbgefallenen vom bifdjöflicben Stuhle ¿u flogen.
SBie kommt eS aber, baf$ biefe bie alte Kirdjenverfaffung vod=
ftänbig umftofjenbe Sehre entgegen ben feierlichen Rerficperungen ber in
$ulba verfammelten 53ifd;öfe auf bem (Joneil ¿ur iöerathung gelangte
unb fchliefjlid) trots beS SBiberftanbeS vieler ißifdmfe mit ben von bem
^jerrn Rorrebner gezeichneten Mitteln burepgefe^t mürbe?
T)ie Slntmort finbeu mir in ber ®efd;ichte. Scpon vor bem (Soncil
mürben Stimmen laut, melche vor ber brohenben ®efahr mamten unb
gelehrte unb fleißige [päube maren gefdjjäftig, Wege für bie gut ge=
meinten SBarnungen aus ben ben Saien fchmer ¿ugänglidjen Quellen
ber Kircpengef (piepte ber Qeffentlid)keit ¿u übergeben. Sie geigten unS,
mie im eilften ^aprpunbert aus bem, ben falfd;en Qecretalen SfiborS
entnommenen, Privilegium ber Kircpe, ben Jpimmel ¿u verfdjliefjen, mem
fie moUe, bie Papfte in ihren ®uUen über baS Rerpältni^ ber Kircpe
¿um Staat 2lnfi(pten unb ©runbfäpe folgerten, bie ben mit ben 3>been
beS 19. ^aprpunberts aufgemaepfenen Staatsbürger gerabe¿u erfdjrecfen.
SRan verglid) bie päpftlicpe ©emalt mit ber Sonne, bie meltlicpe mit
bem Wionb, ber von ber Sonne fein Sicht empfange. (Sin anberer 23er=
gleich mar ber ¿mifepen Seele unb Seib, ber für [ich nidjts unb nur
ber untermürfige Qiener ber Seele fein fott; unb ebenfo allbekannt ift
bie [pmbolifepe QarfteHung ber ¿mei Schmerter, melche beibe bem Papft
gehören, von melden baS eine von bem papfte geführt mirb, baS anbere
vom Kaifer, feboep für bie Kircpe unb nad) Slnmeifung beS papfteS.
Roch übertriebener äußerten fiep einzelne geiftlicpe Theoretiker. (Sine
im Auftrage bes papfteS ^opann XXII. von bem Ruguftiner Trionfo
verfaßte (3ufammenftcllung beS KircpenredjtS [teilt baS ^egfeuer unter
bie §errfd;aft beS pap[teS unb behauptet, ber Papft könne, menn er
moUe, alle im §egfeuer befinblicpen Seelen auf einmal aus bemfeiben
�enHaffen. £>ie SDhdjt b$ PapfteS ift nach Slnficht btcfeö Theologen
fo unermeßlich groß, baß fein. papft wiffen tonne, was et affe«
tl)un bürfc.
SDie prattifche Durchführung btefer monftröfen Slnfchauungen finben
Sie, m. £>., in ben furchtbaren Kämpfen, reelle ^aprhunberte lang
btc Sßapfte mit ben beutfehen Kaifern führten. Söir finben biefe
Doctrinen in bem Streite ¿wifchen Papft ®regor VII. unb König
Heinrich IV. verwirtlicht. $n bet feierlichen Sißung beb ©oncils ju
Ütom am 7. 5Rär^ 1080 fpracp ber papft:
„äßol/an beim, 3hr 35äter unb heiligfte durften, es möge bte
ganje 2öelt erlernten unb einfehen, baß, wenn 3hr
Fimmel
binben unb löfen tonnt, 3hr auf ber ®l’bc bie Kaifertpürner,
Königreiche, gmrftenthümer, ^er^ogthümer, ©raffepaften unb aller
‘’Dienfcften ¿Bedungen nach ®ebühr einem geglichen nehmen unb
geben tonnt. Denn 3hr ha^t oft genommen bie Patriarchate, pri=
mate, ©rjbisthümer, Wthümer ben Schlechten unb Unwürbigen
unb fie gegeben frommen. Söenn-3hr
über bie geiftlichen
Dinge richtet, was muß man bann glauben, haft 3^‘ hMWi^
ber weltlichen tonnt; unb wenn 3hr über bie @ngel, welche allen
ftoQcn dürften gebieten, richtet, was tonnt 3hr thUtt
bereu
Stlaven? SJZögen nun bie Könige unb alle dürften ber SSelt
lernen, wie h»<h 3hr feib, was 3hr tonnet,' unb mögen fie ft<h
hüten, gering gu achten baS ®cbot (Euerer Kirche: unb fo übet
benn rafch an befagtem Heinrich @uer Urteil, bafc öUe triffen,
baß er nicht jufaUig fallen wirb, fonbern burch @uere Pacht''
2luf berfelben Spnobe unterwarf bann ber papft „ben oft ge=
nannten Heinrich, ben fie König nennen/' ber ©xcommunication unb
von Weitem ihm im Flamen beb allmächtigen ®otteS baS ¿Reich ber
Deutfchen unb Italiens unterfagenb, nahm er ihm alle tönigltche ®ewalt
unb Sßürbe, verbot, ba£ irgenb ein ®hr^ft * m
h
feinem Könige
gehorche, unb fpracp los vom SSerfprechen bes @ibeS alle, bie ihm
gefchworen höben ober f^tvören werben aus bem ¿Reiche.
3m 3öhre 10 77 erfolgte jener für bie beutfdhe ®efc^ic^te fo
furchtbar bemüthigenbe Sltt ber Unterwerfung Heinrichs IV., ber bret
Dage lang vor bem ^hore ber 23urg (Sanoffa ftanb, elenbiglich entblößt
von allem töniglichen Schmucfe, barfuß unb in wollenem ©eroanbe, bis
�25
ber [tolge Ißapft fiep bewegen Itefs, ben reuigen Sopn wieber in bie
©cmeinf^aft ber Jtircpe aufgunepmen.
0>aö Scpicffal -SpeinricpS IV. tpeilten viele feiner Vacpfolger, unter
Welcpcn jtaifer ßubwig ber Vaper befonberS auSertoren ift, mit ben
gräßlicpen Vannflücpen, bie auß IRom auf ipn perabblipten, afó piftorifcpcS iBeìfpiel gu bienen, in weldpcr V3eife Ueberpebungeu ber geiftlidpen
Ocwalt gu faft unüberfteigliipen ^inbemiffen für Ausübung ber l)te=
gierungbgewalt ber dürften peranwatpfen tonnen.
So entftanb namcutlicp feit ©regor VII. aub bem urfprünglicpen
eterne bcö SßrimatS beö VifepofS von £Rom auf gefälfdpter ©ruub
*
tage jene toloffale ?lUeö bcperrfcpenbe äftaept beS SßapfttpumS. Vctradpten
wir aber ben inneren ¿uftanb ber Jtircpe in jenen feiten bc§ WUttct^
alteri, . fo bietet fiep unö ein entfcpliipcb Vilb. 9ìic perrfepte eine
größere Korruption, ein tieferer Verfall ber Sitten unb ber ^irepenguept.
©efcpicptsfcprciber aub jener ¿eit fiuben taum VBorte, ben burep unb
burep verberbten Buftanb ber Jtirctje gu fepilbern, unb immer wirb
JRom ber Ißfupl genannt, von bem aub fiep bad Verb erben alten übrigen
Stpcilen ber fatpolifepen SSelt mittpeile. Wit tiefer Vefcpämung bliefen
wir auf jene $eit gurücf; eS war biejßeit ber fureptbarften Verirrungen
ber menßplicpen Vernunft; eb war bie 3eit, wo bie ^nquifition unb
bie ^cyenprogeffe blüpten. Unb wenn wir unb bab Scpicffal ber
Saufcnb unb aber £aufenbe vergegenwärtigen, bie unter ber Auflage
ber Peperei ben Snquifitionbgericpten verfielen, wenn wir an bie Ve=
jammernbwertpeften von 3lUen benfen, bie je bab me nfcplicpe Kienb ver
fcplang', jene Unglücflicpcn, benen man auf ber polier bie einfältigften
©eftänbniffe abpreßte, um fie auf ben Scpeiterpaufen gu fcpleppen, fo
fragen wir unwiUlürlitp, wo blieb benn bie Stimme ber unfeplbaren
Vorgänger beb unfeplbaren ^ßapftcb, ber ÜRacpfolger beffen, ber einft
auf bie Vefcpulbigungen ber Ißparifaer gegen bie Slpoftcl bie fcpbne
Antwort gab: „wenn ipr wüßtet, wab eb peißt, Varmpergigfeit will
icp unb feine Opfer; ipr würbet biefe Sdpulblofen niept verurtpeilen."
Verüprte cb vicUeicpt niept bie Sitten ber fatpolifepen Sßclt, wenn
päpftlicpe ©eriepte Wcnfcpcir gum Xob verurtpeilteu, weil fie gu bem
©ott ber Kpriftcn, aber in anberen formen beteten, unb wenn bie welt=
licpeWacpt biefe Urtpeile in ber barbarifepeften Vkife vollftreden mußte?
Slbcr Sie fiuben nirgenbb, meine Herren, ein Kinfcpreiten ber Zapfte
gegen biefe finftcren unb graufamen ^been, bie bamalb bie ©elfter
�26
beperrfcpten; bagegen £at uns bte ©efcpicpte eine Butte beS ißapftcS
^nnocen^ VIII. aufbemaprt, in welcher bei auf bent (gebiete beS (g(au=
benS unb ber Sitten unfeplbare ^apft auSbrücflicp erflärt, ber (glaube
an §eyen unb Berbinbungen mit bem bbfen $einb fei fein .Spirngefpinnfty
unb in melcper ber ißapft fiep über vormipige Saien unb Jtlerifer be
*
fcpmert, bie iptmer mepr miffen möcpten, als nöt^ig fei, unb feinen
^nquifitoren ungerechtfertigte ^inberniffe in ben 2öeg legten.
©aS mar ber Buftanb auf bent (gebiet ber Sitten ¿u jener $eit,
afö bie papftlicpe Wgcmalt als ein eprfureptgebietenber, mie aus einem
(guffe gefepaffener Bau bie Söelt beherrfc^te, unb um baS (gebiet beS
(glaubens mar nicht beffer befteUt, menn anberS mir ber Berficperung beS
BenetianerS Saituto glauben bürfen, ber im 14. Baprpitnbert be=
rechnet, bafj bie Hälfte ber (Jpriften etma eycommuntcirt fei unb bar=
unter bie ergebenden ©teuer ber ^irepe«
(grft nacp Baprpunb erten fam bie menfcplicpe Bernunft mieber ¿u
(Spreit; ihr reines unb nicht verlofepeubeS ßtdjt legte ben ^nquifitionS
*
gerieten ihr blutiges ^anbmerf unb trieb ben ^eyenfpuef aus ben
' köpfen, unb bie (gefepieptsforfepung lieferte enblicp ben BemeiS, bafj bie
©ocumente, auf melden bie päpftli^e 5lttgemalt fiep auf gebaut patte,
gefälfept feien, — eine Einnahme, bie gegen @nbe beS »ergangenen ^apr«
punberts fogar von Seite beS tßapfteS ihre Betätigung fanb.
Sie fepen, meine Herren, bie SBur^elit ber neuen Sepre verlieren
fiep tief in ber (gefc^ic^te vergangener BapTpunberte. ©iefe ßepre patte
¿u lange bie (geifter beperrfept, als bafj fie mit bent Racpmeis ihres
unlauteren UrfprungeS fofort aus ber Söeit patte verfcpmtnbeit fonnett.
Sie blieb ber erfte (glaubenSfap bei jenen, beren einziges Streben auf
Befeftigung ber äußeren Rtacptftettung ber streße gerichtet ift. Slber
bie (gefepiepte pat getreu bie fcplimmen folgen verzeichnet unb auf
*
bemaprt, melcpe bie Bermirflicpung ber Sepre ber päpftltcpcn Rttgematt
in früperen Beiten pervorgentfen pat, unb fo fepen mir fofort bie un
*
verfennbaren Beiden ber IXttrupe unb Befürchtungen ber Regierungen,
als bie Rbficpten fiep entpüttten, biefe Sepre auf bem (Sonett ¿um ©ogrna
¿u erpeben.
©er baperifepen Staatsregierung unb bem bamaligcn leitenben
ÜRinifter beS Sleufjern, dürften ^openlope, gcbüprt bie @pre, bie
erfteit Scpritte getpan unb mit bem richtigen Berftänbniffe ber aus
biefer (glaubenSlepre für ben Staat entftepenben (gefapren bie tpeo=
�27
logifcpen unb juxiftifc^en §acu (täten bet Univerfitäten dRüncpen unb
SBürgburg gu einem ©utacpten über bie politiföpen ©onfequengen eilieb
folcpen ©ogmab aufgeforbert gu pabcn. ((Bravo.) ©ie Antwort lautete,
ba£ burcp ©ogmatifirung beb SpKabub unb ber päpftlicpen Unfehlbarkeit
bab bisherige SSerijditnifs von Staat unb J^ircije in (Bapern pringipieH
umgeftaltet unb beinap bie gange ©efepgebung begüglicp ber (Recptbver=
pältniffe ber fatpolifcpen Jtircpe in fyrage geftellt werbe.
2l(b bab Schema de ecclesia auf bem * SonciI borgelegt mürbe,
<
rührten fiep auch ^ie ©rofjmäcpte. ©ine ©epefepe beb frangöfifepen
2Rinifterb, beb ©rafen ©aru, betont, biefeb ©epema pabe ¿um Bweck
bie Söieberperftellung ber Sepre, wonach bie bürgerliche ©efeüfcpaft ber
§errfcpaft beb Mcrub unterteilt werben müffe. SRit ©ogmatifirung
beb ©pffabub unb ber Unfehlbarkeit beb (ßapfteb würbe alle politifcpe
unb religiöfc SRacpt ber Jtircpe überwiefen unb oon pier aub in ben
Rauben ipreb ©berpaupteb conccntrirt. ©ie ¡¡Regierungen bepielten nicht
mepr dRacpt unb bie bürgerliche ©efeUfcpaft niept mepr ^reipeit, alb
ber ^irepe beliebe, ipnen gu iiberlaffen. ©er fraitgöfifcpe dRinifter
warnt bie äturie vor ben verhängnisvollen folgen biefer ©laubenblepren.
(Sr befürchtet gwar keine unmittelbare ©efapr für bie Unabhängigkeit
ber bürgerlichen ©efeKfcpaft, weil bie §reipeit ber ©ewiffen unb bie
^reipeit ber Äulte gu allgemein anerkannt feien, aber er fürchtet eine
ernftlicpe Störung beb $riebenb ber bürgerlichen ©efeUfcpaft unb eine
Schwächung beb Slnfepenb ber J^ircpe, welche beibe folgen er von bem
Stanbpunkte ber (Regierung alb gleich bebauerlicp bezeichnet.
$n ähnlicher Söeife fpriept fiep ©raf SBeuft aub in einer ©epefepe,
Worin er erklärt, bie öffentliche Meinung fei bereitb in popem ©rabe
beunrupigt unb er fürepte, im §alle ber (Bermirklicpung jener Äunb=
gebungen, bie man zur Beit noep alb Projekte betraepte, werbe fiep eine
unüberfepreitbare Äluft bilben gwifepen ben ©eboten ber Jt'ircpe unb
ben ^been, wclcpe bie meiften mobernen Staaten beperrfepen.
©ine von bem (Bertrctcr beb norbbeutfepen (Bunbeb in (Rom über=
gebene (BorfteHung unterftüpt bie ©epefepe ber frangöfifepen (Regierung,
entpält bie (Befürchtung, eb möcpte burep bab neue ©ogma bab gute
Einvernehmen gwifepen ^¡irepe unb Staat getrübt werben unb fcpliefjt
mit ber treffenben (Bemerkung':
©ie neue ßepre mürbe gu ^¡rifen führen, von melcpen bie
päpftlicpe (Regierung trop iprer trabitio.nellen Söeibpeit vielleicht
�feinen Begriff fyabe, ba fte rtidjt wie bfe ¿BunbeSregierung in ■
ber Sage fei, bie Stimmung ber (Geifter in ihren ßanbern ¿u be?
urteilen.
EBir tonnen, meine Herren, ben fcparfcn ¿Blick beS ¿BerfafferS
Jener ¿Borftcllung nur bewunbern; feine ¿Propl^eihung, bie wohl alle
beutfdjen Katholiken umfaßte, ift eingetroffen, mir bcfinben uns bereits
in jener Krifis, bie man ber päpftlichen ¿Regierung als unausbleibliche
$olge ber neuen (Glaubenslehre vorauSgefagt h^t.
©er le^te (Grunb jener ¿Beunruhigung, welche fdjon früher bie
öffentliche EReinung erregte unb ben ¿Regierungen bie erwähnten offt
*
dellen Kunbgebungen bictirte, war weniger bte (Gefahr eines birekten
Eingriffes ber Kirchengewalt auf bie Staatsverfaffungen, eine (Gefahr,
welcher bie ¿Regierungen im ¿Bcwufjtfein ber Ucbcrcinftimmung ber
weitaus größten $ahl ihrer Eingehörigen mit ben von ihnen vertretenen
$becn ruhig ins Eluge blicfen könnten, es ift vielmehr bie mehr auf
bie Bukunft (ich erftreckenbe Befürchtung, bie jetjt herrfchenben Bbeen
in einem ber Uebcrwachung ber ¿Regierung fiep entjiehenben, mit ftetiger
Kraft fortwirkenben Kampfe unterliegen ¿u feljen.
©er (Glaube an bie papftliche Unfehlbarkeit, fott er attberS mehr
fein, als fepeinbare Unterwerfung aus ¿Rücksichten ber ¿Bequemlichkeit,
verpflichtet ben gewiffenhaften ERann, bie von ben unfehlbaren ¿päpften
auSgefprodßenen EBahrheitcn auf bem (Gebiete beS (Glaubens uttb ber
Sitten niept allein für wahr ¿u heilten, fonbern fie auch als unfehlbare
¿Richtfchnur im Beben ¿u nehmen unb für ©urchführung berfelben fowie für Befeitigung ber ihrer ©urchführung cntgcgenftehcnbcn §tnber=
niffe nach Kräften einjutreten.
¿Run finben wir aber auf bem (Gebiete ber Sitten eine ¿Reihe von
päpftlichen EluSfprüchen, bie von ben ¿päpften nur in ihrer (Sigenfchaft
als Beprer unb Wirten ber katholifchen SBelt verkünbet fein können
unb bie in offenem SBiberfpruche ftehen mit ben burep bie-¿BerfaffungSurkunbe unb ben StaatSbürgereib uns auferlegten ¿Pflichten.
3$ weijj wohl, meine Herren, bafj man biefe ¿Behauptung auf
Seite ber Elnhängcr ber UnfchlbarkeitSlehre beftreitet; ich lege aber ben
BnfaUibiliften einfach bie im Bahre 1568 von ¿piuS V. erlaffene
fog. ElbenbmahlSbulle ¿um ¿Beweife vor; biefe ¿Bulle foffte nach ihrem
. ausbrücflichen Sßorflaut in ber ©hriftenheit als ewiges (Gcfefc bauern
unb vorzüglich im ¿Beichtftuhl ben (Gewiffen ber (Gläubigen dngcfcharft
�29
werben, ©tefe Suffe crcommunicirt unb verflucht affe Jto^er unb
SchiSmatiter, fowie biejentgen, welche fte aufnehmen, begünstigen unb
vertheibigen, alfo affe durften unb Magistrate, welche SInberSgläubigen
Slufenthalt in ihren ßänbern geftatten; fte eycommuntcirt affe, welche bte
Sü^cr SlnberSgläubigcr lefen, behalfen ober bructen; fie greift bann
mit benfelben JHrchenftrafcn in eine Reihe non Souveränitätsrechten
bes Staates ein, bie hier aufeufufyren gu weitläufig wäre.
konnte biefe Suffe ber ißapft in anberer Gigenfcbaft erlaffen als
[ in feiner ©igenfe^aft als ^irte unb ßel^rer ber tatholifchcn Belt, unb
r in welker anbcrit ©igenf^aft hätte er biefe Suffe als ewiges ®efe&, als
eine im Seichtftuhl ben ©ewiffen ber ätatholiten eingufc^ärfcnbe Satzung
f erlaffen tonnen? Unb bot waren bei (Srlaffung tiefer Suffe bie wclt=
| liehen Regierungen fo fcljr überzeugt, baff biefer päuftticlje @rlafj ein
^öd^ft gefährliches Sittentat gegen bie Souveränität ber Staaten fei,
Jbafj in $ranüeich bas Parlament feben Siftof, ber biefe. Suffe ver=
tunben werbe, als £ochverräther ¿u proccffiren brohte.
SBir brauchen aber nicht auf bas 16. ^ahtunbert ¿urüct¿ugchen,
jum bie Sewcife für ftaatSgefährliche päpftlidje SluSf^rüche ¿u finben,
wir haben päpftliche ßrlaffe aus ber afferneueften Beit, aus weU
chen berfelbe, ben mobernen StaatSibeen feinbliche ®eift uns ent
*
Igegenweht.
3n ber Slffocution vom 22. 3uni 1868 nennt Ißapft ißiuS bte
Sfterreichifcheit SerfaffungSgcfefce, welche bte Meinungsfreiheit, bie sßrefj
*
freiheit, bie ©laubenS unb ©ewiffens^reiheit, bie Freiheit ber Biffen
*
*
fäjaft ftatuiren, bie gemiftten @hen unb bie ©emeinftaftlichteit ber
^riebhöfe regeln} hefüg ¿u tabclnbe, verbammenswürbige unb abfeheu
*
liehe ®cfe£e; erklärte btefelben traft feiner Styoftolifchen Sluctorität als
(gänzlich nichtig unb ohne Jtraft unb bebroht jene, welche biefe @cfe£e
hu billigen unb auS¿uführett nicht anftanben, mit ben Jtirchcnftrafen.
$n welcher ©igenfehaft hat benn hier ber ißa^ft fein Rcrbam
*
|mungSurtheil ausgesprochen ? Bo liegt feine Screchtigung, bie Ser
*
faffung eines Souveränen Staates als mit ben Äir^cngefe^en im
Biberfpruch ¿u verurteilen, wenn er fich nicht auf fein Slmt als
£>irte unb Seigrer ber tatholifchen Belt berufen tann? Unb biefelben
©runbfäfce, meine Herren, finben Sie in ber baperiften StaatSVer
*
faffung; auch hier ift OewiffenSfreiheif, Freiheit ber jaulte, Freiheit
Kr treffe, gcmeinfchaftliche Senkung ber Kirchen unb $riebhöfe
(
�ftatuirt, unb biefe ©efeije, weihe wir befhworen fyaben, rveldje wir als
wertvolle politifhe ©rrungenf^aften, als glänjenben «Sieg bcr Beiten
Aber religiöfe Unbulbfamteit unb Vefhränkung ber Rechte unb grei=
fyeiten ber Staatsbürger in @t)ren galten, tiefe ©efe^e finb in gleicher
SBeifc ber papftliäjen Verbammung verfallen. Unb nun frage idh,
kann wirtlich ein gewiffenhafter Staatsbürger ber Seljre von ber ¡papftlitten Unfehlbarkeit fih unterwerfen, oí>ne mit feinem ©ewiffen in un=
lösbare VHberfprühe ju gerathen, fann ein Staatsbeamter, bem bie
SSaljrung ber ¿Rechte feiner Mitbürger jur Üblichen 5ßfCic^t gemalt ift,
eine ße^re annehmen, bie ihn verpflichtet, biefelben Rechte unb ^retheiten, ju’bereu SCöahrung er berufen ift, jugleih von feinem religiöfen
Stanbpuntte aus als Brrthümer unb jwar als feiner Äirhe gefährliche
Brrthümer ju betrauten unb als fotc^e ju befeitigen?
Bch glaube, meine Herren, bei einer ernften Prüfung biefer grage
ergibt fih bie Antwort von felbft. Unb nun beuten Sie fih biefe
Sehre im !prattifhen Seben burchgeführt, beuten Sic fih biefe Sehre
in ben Schulen gelehrt, was werben Sie Bhren ät'inbern antworten,
wenn fie aus ber Schule kommen unb bie ©Itern fragen, ob fie an
bie Unfehlbarkeit beS gtopfteS glauben, ohne welchen ©tauben Dlicmanb
felig werben könne? Renten Sie fich bie grauen mit biefer Sehre er=
füllt, bereu Mur fich leiht ^it ber Verkeilung befreunbet, bie gange
hriftlihe fpeerbe unter einem unfehlbaren Wirten bem fpimmel juwan=
beln ju fehen 1 Senken Sie fidh ben geftörten grieben in ben ©emeinben,
bie verlebten religiöfen ©efühle, bie fo leicht in ben furchtbaren SSahn=
finn beS religiöfen ganatiSmuS, ber in Verbrehen gottgefällige §anb=
lungen erblickt, auSarten können unb beuten Sie fich baS erhabene
$lmt beS SeclforgerS, baS in feiner ibealen Sluffaffung ber Vroft ber
^Bekümmerten, bie 3uflu^t ber Vebrängten fein foH, bie Stimme beS
griebenS umgewaubclt in baS Organ bcr unbulbfamcn gbeen aus
ntom, in eine Quelle beS religiöfen UnfriebenS unb ber bauernben, tiefgehenben ©ehäffigteiten! Unb nun frage ih nochmals, können Wir bie
neue ©laubenSlchre annehmen? SBir nehmen fie nicht an, baS fei
unfere ©rtlärung heute.
Wan mufjte febon I?in linb ^eber ben ^rwurf hvren, nufer
Stritt entbehre eines beftimmten BieleS, tvir könnten ber Staatsrcgie^
rung nicl;t einmal fagen, weihe Wiegeln wir von ihr verlangten,
liefet Vorwurf beruht auf einer unrichtigen Sluffaffung berwgegcn|
�31
weinigen Sage. 33et 3lbfaffung her Hlbreffe würbe btefe $rage ernftlitp
in©rwägung gezogen, wie man bieS wopl billig bon einer $erfamnt=
hing Befonnener Scanner erwarten tann, bie niept wie jugenblitpe §i^=
topfe
in eine Bewegung [türmen unb beim erften Sdpritt noep un=
flar finb über bett ¿Weiten. SBir baepten an bie Seftimmungen ber
Sßerfaffung, wenn in einer ©laubenSgenoffenfcpaft Spaltung entftepe.
I
3un^fi wüffen wir aber ber Regierung ben Semeis liefern, bafs burep
bie neue ©laubenSlepre eine tiefgepenbe Spaltung in ber tat^olifc^en
I
Mrcpe eingetreten fei, baS Weitere überlaffen wir bann borerft ber
|
SÖeiSpeit nuferer Staatsregierung.
i
Unb fo gepe jeber mit feinem ©emiffen ¿u Hiatp unb lege fiep bie
j
e
*
$rag twr, ob er fiep ber neuen ßepre unterwerfen tonne; wer aber
I unferer Unficpt ift, ber bepalte feine Meinung nid^t für fiep, fonbern
' erflare auf bem bon uns betretenen Söege feine Uebereinftimmung mit
II nuferem Sorgepen. $cp glaube miep nidpt ¿u täufdpen, m.
wenn
Ä"
H
KE
X
L
icp fage, es beginnt ein Jtampf, in bem jeher Partei nepmen mufj.
T Sammeln mir uns unb treten mir ein in ben stampf mit fo mäeptigen
| Scpaaren, fampfen mir mit berfelben ©ntfcploffenpeit, Wie unfere Armeen
uns ¿u tämpfen leprten, unb wie biefe ben Sieg an ipre $apnen ¿u
’
.tnüpfen wußten unb ben tpeueren Soben nuferes SaterlanbeS bem
j p.^einbe weprten, fo poffen audp wir ¿u fiegen für ein gleidp tpeuereS
» ®ut, — für bie ^reipeit beS ©elftes unb für bie fyreipeit nuferer
K ©emiffen. (©rofjer SeifaH.)
£)er fperr Sonfipenbe OberftaatSanmalt bou Sßolf lub pierauf
«perrn Staatsanwalt Streng ein, bie ¿ur Slunapme borgelegte 3Ibreffe
bor^ulefen unb lief; über jeben 2lbfa£ berfelben bie Serfammlung be=
fonberS bebattiren unb abftimmen. 2Rit unmefentlicpen Wiobificationen
würbe ber Slbrefjentwurf einftimmig angenommen. JHladp einigen ge=
fcpaftlicpen Semertungen beS 5perrn Sorfi^enben ergriff noep £ßrof.
Dr. Vollmann baS Söort, um bem ©omite unb ben beiben Hlebnern
ben Bant ber Serfammlung für bie Seranftaltung unb Seitung ber=
felben auS^ubrücfen. ©r fdploB feixte Hiebe mit einem ^>odp auf baS
beutfdpe Saterlanb.
A
1
1
(j
(j
('
Zi
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Bericht uber die am 10 April 1871 in Munchen abgehaltene Katholiken-Versammlung
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [Munchen]
Collation: 31 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Text in German.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5721
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Germany
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Bericht uber die am 10 April 1871 in Munchen abgehaltene Katholiken-Versammlung), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
German
Catholic Church-Germany
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7bf0a030e74da5e5be9374ecf5f8aed8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=r2pP3oO65fHJtRO-CozuqbquF8SKBiOmRdUh%7EVi8%7EAI-miASw-xxhdsWExDh2NPUK4n%7EJnfuwfBsG9vfsDoiGwLH3K7agktN6-AyFaiiSWtSyEN2eGsdsAp4IO%7EvAgX11Fv-EZTZk%7EkCCXyTz0hZ6vbxS-YSqk00mH2dIS2CRJcm-9hJE-kBQR14%7EXL55iyjJI0tP1lvnhFbrXte6ckkcq6CH0OErWnnCqiv%7EQUEY3tGZ5ZU9o3LAzWJDe2V-uFoiezrsWWgechq--qUlLFipkESsPIC2UncWY%7EocanrnNadNMfbgwQMFTCNJaiVaPdRvmuMMsdEODd8n6JJe2yhOA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4426e2bfdabf1bc2257ac01edffae95c
PDF Text
Text
JEWISH LITERATURE
AND
MODERN EDUCATION:
OR,
THE USE AND MISUSE OF THE BIBLE IN
THE SCHOOLROOM.
BEING TWO LECTURES DELIVERED BEFORE THE SUNDAY LECTURE
SOCIETY, MARCH 26th AND APRIL 2d 1871.
PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR,
BT
THOMAS SCOTT, RAMSGATE.
Price One Shilling and Sixpence, stitched.
On better paper and bound in cloth, Two Shillings and Sixpence.
�“ These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that
they
.
.
.
searched the Scriptures daily, whether those
things were so.”—Acts xvii. 11.
�PREFACE.
Whether or not the Solution, given in these Lectures,
of the “Religious Difficulty” in our National Education,
be acceptable for practical application, is a question other
than that of the intrinsic soundness of that Solution.
It is to this only that my responsibility extends. The
responsibility of declining to accept a proffered remedy
must rest with those to whom the offer is made.
I had intended to keep these Lectures in manuscript,
and repeat them wherever an audience might be found
desirous of hearing facts stated without respect to aught
but the facts. It is in compliance with very many
and pressing solicitations that I have, by printing them,
withdrawn them from further delivery as Public Lectures.
My hope now is that the readers will not be less nume
rous than the hearers would have been, had I adhered
to my original intention.
The Lectures are printed with the changes made on
their second delivery, in Edinburgh.
I cannot let them
�iv
Preface.
go from me without acknowledging my obligations to
the series of small publications issued periodically by
Mr Thomas Scott of Ramsgate, to whose indefatigable
self-devotion to the cause of “ Free Inquiry and Free
Expression,” the present rapid spread of information,
and consequent movement of thought on religious
matters, especially among the clergy of the Establish
ment,—(a movement far greater than the public is aware
of)—is in no small degree attributable. The tracts
entitled, The Defective Morality of the New Testament, by
Professor F. W. Newman; The Gospel of the Kingdom,
and The Influence of Sacred History on the Intellect and
Conscience,—especially deserve mention for the use I
have made of them.
A few brief passages given as
quotations, but without reference, are for the most part
taken, with more or less exactness, from The Pilgrim and
the Shrine.
E. M.
London, September 1871.
�SYNOPSIS.
LECTURE THE FIRST.
KOri 3TIOS
.11.
J2.
.83.
i4.i 5.
’ .‘< 6.
7.
- , J 8..
: .(9.
INTRODUCTION,
.....
DEFINITION AND FUNCTION OF EDUCATION,
THE SCHOOL BOARDS AND THE “RELIGIOUS DIFFICULTY,”
THE GENESIS AND HABITAT OF THE “DIFFICULTY,”
THE BIBLE AS A MORAL TEACHER,
THE BIBLE AS AN INTELLECTUAL TEACHER,
THE BIBLE “WITHOUT NOTE OR COMMENT,”
THE GOSPELS AND THE CHARACTER OF JESUS,
.
THE “KINGDOM OF HEAVEN,”
1
3
6
11
12
24
27
35
37
LECTURE THE SECOND.
.0110.
ill.
THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A RULE OF LIFE AND FAITH,
.
41
THE “CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTURE,” DOCTRINAL AND
OTHER,
.
.
.
.
.
.48
12. WHY THE BIBLE SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS, .
57
13. HOW IT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH,
.
.
.65
;14. “notes and comments;” the principle of thf.tr
CONSTRUCTION,
.....
69
115. BIBLICAL INFALLIBILITY,
.
.
.
.74
16. BIBLICAL INSPIRATION,
.
.
.
.78
17. THE BIBLE AND MODERN COMMENTATORS,
.
.
86
>18. THE BIBLE AND MODERN PRACTICE,
.
.
.88
19. THE SCHOOL AND TEACHER OF THE FUTURE, .
.
94
��LECTURE THE FIRST.
------- o-------
I.
Why is it with, us in England, that with all our achieve
ments in Science, Literature, and Art; in Government,
Industry, and Warfare; in Honour, Religion, and Virtue;
with conquests ranging over the whole threefold domain
of Humanity, the Physical, the Intellectual, and the
Moral,—why is it that the moment we attempt to ex
tend the manifold blessings of our civilisation to the
entire mass of our countrymen, we find ourselves at fault
and utterly baffled 1
Long has the condition of myriads among us been
known to be terrible in its degradation. Long have we
acknowledged an earnest desire to raise them out of that
condition. Measure after measure have we devised and
enacted; but none of them, not even the vast Church
establishment of the realm, has proved in any degree
commensurate with the evil. At length our efforts have
culminated in the elaboration and enactment of one
comprehensive scheme; and we have proceeded so far as
to have elected as our representatives to carry it into
effect, those of us whom, for superior intelligence and
energy, we deem best qualified for the task.
Shortlived, however, do our exultant hopes promise to
�2
'Jewish Literature
be. The very agents of our beneficent intentions, the
Schoolboards, in whose hands are borne the germs of our
redemption and future civilisation, are altogether at such
odds within themselves upon some of the leading and
most essential principles, that the scheme threatens
wholly to collapse in disheartening failure, or to become
a perennial source of bitterness and dissension.
Is it not passing strange ? Based though our culture
has for centuries been, upon one and the self-same book,
so far from our having attained any degree of unity
thereby, we are divided and rent into sects and factions
innumerable and irreconcilable, until it would appear as
if the very spirit of that proverbially perverse and stiff
necked people whose sacred literature we have adopted
as the rule of our faith and practice, had passed into
ourselves and become a constituent part of our very
nature.
The greatness of the emergency,—for it is the redemp
tion of our masses from pauperism, ignorance, and bar
barism that is at stake,—not justifies merely, but impe
ratively demands the strenuous collaboration of all who,
having the good of their kind at heart, have made this
question one of special investigation. It is in no spirit
of hasty presumption,—scarcely is it with much hope of
wide acceptance,—at least in the present,—that I have
responded to the invitation to recite here to-day the con
clusions to which my study of the points at issue has
brought me. Rather is it that it will be a relief to my
self to have thrown off the reflections and results which,
in a somewhat varied experience at home and abroad,
have accumulated upon me, and to feel that I have done
this at the time when there is most chance of their being
useful. It is thus that I have prepared my contribution
�and Modern Education.
3
towards the solution of “ the Religious Difficulty ” which
lies “ a lion in the path ” of our National Education and
all our national improvement, showing as- yet not the
smallest symptom of discomposure through any “ Reso
lution ” of Metropolitan or other School-board.
II.
In all emergencies, whether of conduct or of opinion,
where there is doubt and space for deliberation, it is
best to go back to the very beginning of the matter, and
there, in its initial principles, seek the clue which is to
conduct us safely out of our dilemma. It is wonderful
sometimes how readily a skein is disentangled when
once the right end of the thread has been found. Our
friends across the Atlantic, the Americans, were for a long
time disastrously hampered in their attempts at legisla
tion. It is not surprising that it should have been so,
when we consider that the principal object of legislation
is Man, and that the two great sections of the American
community differed altogether in their definition of Man;
the one holding that persons who had dark complexions
and a peculiar kind of rough curly hair, several millions
of whom lived in the country, were not men L and the
other holding that they were just as much entitled to be
treated as human beings as people with light complexions
and smooth hair. At length, after many years of bitter
quarrelling, ending with one of the most fearful inter
necine conflicts ever known, it was agreed to regard all
people as human, and to legislate alike for them with per
fect equality; whereupon the difficulty entirely vanished,
and the course of the nation became smooth and easy.
In like manner our difficulties, in regard to popular
�4
Jewish Literature
instruction, have all arisen through our neglect of a de
finition. We have not defined to ourselves the precise
object of the system of National Education, which, after
generations of anxious endeavour, we have at length
succeeded in obtaining, and which we are now seeking
to bring into operation throughout the length and
breadth of the land.
The first step towards obtaining what we want, ever
is to know what we want; and since in this case we
cannot purchase the article ready-made, but have to
fabricate it for ourselves, it is not sufficient to have a
bare name for it, or a vague apprehension about it, but
we must be conversant with its nature, characteristics,
and uses.
Let us further simplify and enlarge the scope of the
question, and ask what is the object of all the education,
public or private, which we give, or seek to give, to our
children ? What, in short, is the purpose of education 1
Using the term education in its broad sense, and
without reference to technical instruction in special
subjects, we can only answer, that its purpose is to
make children into good and capable men and women by
cultivating their intelligence and their moral sense, or
conscience.
It follows, if we agree to this definition, that we are
bound to reject as worse than useless, any instruction
which is calculated to repress or pervert either of those
faculties from their proper healthy development.
Those who at first hesitate to acquiesce in this defini
tion, in the belief that education should have a more
special object, such as to make good Christians, good
Catholics, good Protestants, good Churchmen, or good
Nonconformists, must on a little reflection perceive that
�and Modern Education.
5
they cannot really mean to rank the intelligence and
moral sense as secondary and subordinate to such ends,
but that they only desire people to be good Christians,
good Churchmen, and so on, because the fact of being so
would, in their view, involve the best culture of the
faculties in question. So that if they believed it did not
involve this end, they would abandon their preference
for such denominations. That is, they would rather
have people to be good men and bad (say) Noncon
formists, than good Nonconformists and bad men.
Agreeing, then, that the object of education is the
development of the intellect and moral sense, we shall,
no doubt, further agree that the best chance of success
fully cultivating those desirable qualities which we
designate virtues, lies in impressing the mind while
young with the most elevated and winning examples of
them, and guarding it from any familiarity with their
opposites ; and that it is because we deem such qualities
to be best, that we regard the Deity as possessing them
in the Infinite, and hold up as a pattern of life the most
perfect example of them in the finite.
Yet, though agreeing both in the object and method
of education when thus plainly put before us, so ingeni
ously perverse and inconsistent are we that we first
refuse to agree upon any common system of instruction
whatever, and then we insist upon neutralising or
vitiating such instruction as we do agree upon, by
mingling it with teaching which is at once repressive of
the Intellect, and injurious to the Moral Sense.
The sole impediment to the success of our efforts, the
rock upon which all our hopes of rescuing the mass of our
countrymen from ignorance and barbarism are in danger
of being dashed, consists in the unreasoning and indis
�6
'Jewish Literature
criminate veneration in which the Bible is popularlyheld among us. Impelled by that veneration, we hesi
tate not to degrade our children’s view of Deity by
familiarising them with a literature in which He is
represented as feeble, treacherous, implacable, and
unjust; and confound at once their Intelligence and
Moral Sense, by compelling them to regard that litera
ture as altogether divine and infallible.
Strange infatuation and inconsistency, if, after toiling
for years to obtain an effective system of national edu
cation, we either abandon the task as hopeless, or insist
upon accompanying it by teaching which involves a fatal
outrage upon the very intellect and conscience which it
is the express purpose of that education to foster and
develop!
III.
Before' considering the action of the School-boards, I
must advert for a moment to the principle of their constitution.
There is this difference between Government by Re
presentation and Government by Delegation. It is the
‘ duty of the mere delegate to vote on any given question
precisely as a majority of his constituents may instruct
him. The deliberative function rests with them. He is
their faithful, but unintelligent instrument. The repre
sentative, on the contrary, is selected on account of his
superior faculties or attainments, to go on behalf of his
constituents to the headquarters of information, and
there, in conference with other selected intellects, form
the best judgment in his power; his constituents deter
mining only the general principles and direction of his
policy.
�and Modern Education.
7
The School-boards which are charged with the deter
mination of our new educational system, having been
selected on this principle of representation, we are
entitled to look to their superior intelligence to sup
plement popular deficiencies ; to be superior to popular
prejudices; to be teachers, and, if need be, rebukers,
rather than followers and flatterers of the less instructed
masses : and it is due to such bodies that we carefully
examine the methods by which they propose to deal with
existing difficulties.
Those difficulties turning exclusively upon Religion,
one great step towards their solution has been gained by
the agreement to exclude from the common schools such
minor subjects of difference as the creeds and catechisms
of particular denominations. The Bible remains, the sole
stumbling-block and rock of offence.
The London Board may be taken as representative
not only of the largest and most intelligent. body of
constituents, but also of all the other School-boards. I
propose, therefore, to deal with the propositions by
which the members of that Board have sought to meet
the “religious difficulty.” They are six in number :
1. That the Bible be excluded altogether, on the
ground that its admission is inconsistent with religious
equality.
2. That the Bible be admitted and read,, but without
note or comment.
3. That the Bible be read for the purpose of religious
culture, at the discretion of the teacher.
4. That the teacher’s discretion in the use of the Bible
be so restricted as to exclude the distinctive doctrines of
any sect.
5. That no principle respecting the use of the Bible
�8
'Jewish Literature
be laid down, but that each separate school be dealt with
by itself.
6. That the Bible be read with such explanations in
matters of language, history, customs, &c., as may be
needed to make its meaning plain; and that there be
given such instruction in its teaching, on the first prin
ciples of morality and religion, as is suitable to the
capacities of children; always excluding denominational
teaching.
The Fifth Resolution, “ that no principle be laid down,”
aptly describes the condition of the question up to that
point. In the absence of a definition of its object, it
was impossible for the Board to lay down any principle
for its guidance. In the absence of any controlling
definition, it could only look back to its constituents to
see what they would bear from it. And looking to the
confused mass of public opinion and prejudice in the
absence of any light of one’s own, is like shutting one’s
eyes to avoid seeing the dark.
Travelling one day by a railway on which there are
several tunnels, I observed that whenever the train
entered a tunnel, a little boy who sat next to me, im
mediately pressed his hands over his eyes, and buried his
face in the cushions. To my inquiry why he did this,
he answered that it was because he was afraid of the
dark. I asked him whether it was not just as dark to
him when his face was buried in the cushions. He said
yes; but he had not thought of that, and he would not
know now what to do. I could not bear to deprive him
of his faith, however unenlightened, without giving him
another. A lamp was burning in the roof of the car
riage, too dim in the broad daylight to have attracted
his attention, yet bright enough to dispel the gloom of
�and Modern Education.
9
the tunnel. I suggested that, instead of covering his
face, he would do better to keep his eyes fixed on the
lamp. The little fellow brightened with joy at the
thought; and during the rest of the journey, the in
stant we entered a tunnel, there he was, no longer fear
ful and burying himself in deeper darkness, but steadfastly
looking to the light that shone above him.
“ Look to the light 1 ” is no bad maxim even for those
who have to determine grave questions for the benefit
of others. We have but to “look to the light” of the
definition we have already agreed upon, and difficulties
fly like darkness before the approaching dawn. Even
the difficulties themselves, like Daphne before the Sun
god, are apt to turn into flowers for our delectation. .
The Sixth Resolution, that proposed by Dr Angus, and
supported by Professor Huxley, is the first that shows
any consciousness that there is a light to which we may
look for encouragement and guidance. “ That instruc
tion should be given in the Bible on the first principles of
morality and religion” According to our definition, Edu
cation consists in the cultivation of the Intelligence and
the Moral Sense. This is the light on which the gaze
must be so steadily fixed, that no conflicting influences
shall be capable of diverting our attention. Interpreted
by it, the Bible itself bears witness to the way in which
it should be used. Here, in full accordance with it, is
one of its utterances, “ God is no respecter of persons;
but in every nation, he that feareth Him and worketh
righteousness, is accepted with Him.” (Acts x. 34-5.)
Acting in this spirit, our School-boards will be no re
specters of authors or books, but in every writing that,
and that only, “ which feareth God and worketh righte
ousness,” shall be accepted by them. Here is another,
�io
J
’ ewish Literature
also on the positive side: “ Whatsoever things are true,
whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just,
whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely,
whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any
virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
(Phil. iv. 8.) And another seems to define that Scrip
ture or writing, as alone given by a holy inspiration,
which “ is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for cor
rection, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Tim. iii. 16.)
And on the negative side we have “ Refuse profane and
old wives’ fables;” (1 Tim. iv. 7.) “not giving heed to
Jewish fables.” (Titus i. 14.) “But all uncleanness let
it not be once named among you ;” “ for it is a shame
even to speak of those things which are done of them in
secret.” (Eph. v. 3, 12.) And one more on the posi
tive side. “ Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of
God.” (1 Cor. x. 31.)
Yet with these plain rules for our guidance, not one
of the resolutions proposes to place any restriction upon
the use of the Bible by the children. One, indeed, pro
poses to exclude it bodily from the schools, the good and
the evil together, but upon grounds in no way connected
with its fitness for the perusal of youth. And even the
resolution finally accepted by the Board, while ambigu
ously proposing “ to give from the Bible such instruction
in the principles of religion and morality as is suitable
to the capacities of children,” ventures on no protest
against the Bible as it now stands being put into the
hands of children at all.
The fact is, that the members have allowed themselves
to be so exclusively guided by the “ winds” of popular
“ doctrine,” that they “ have omitted the weightier mat
ters of the law” of morality, and “ passed over judgment
and the love of God.”
�b
and Modern Education.
11
IV.
The reason is not far to seek. A representative body
would not be representative were any wide interval to
intervene between its own intelligence and attainments
and those of its constituents. The latter can be guided
in their selection only by the light they possess j not by
that which they do not possess. Wherefore, for the
School-board to have passed any more radical Resolution
than that which it did pass, would have been for it to
have made itself, not the representative, but the inde
pendent superior of the body which elected it. The
primary defect, therefore, lies with the people at large.
It is the vast amount of bigoted ignorance and supersti
tion still remaining among us that constitutes the real
obstacle to any sound system of national education. It
is the elders who require to be instructed, before we can
begin to teach the children. It is true that a transition
has begun. But every step of the progress from the old
to the new, from darkness to light, is so vehemently
opposed by the vested interests of the dead past, that
the patience of those who believe in the possibility of
progress may well be exhausted, and their faith quenched
in despair.
To be effectual, therefore, remonstrance must be ad
dressed to the people at large, rather than to their
representatives on the School-boards. The transition of
which I spoke as having already begun, is the transition
from a morality affecting to be based upon theology, to
a religion really based upon morality, and, consequently,
to a sound system of morality. This transition must
attain a far more advanced stage in its progress before
the School-board can even begin to carry out the Re-
I
�12
"Jewish Literature
solution it has passed. It is absolutely impossible to
“ give from the Bible, instruction in the principles of
morality and religion suitable to children,” until the
popular theory respecting the Bible, and the theology
based upon it, is so vastly modified as to amount to
an almost total renunciation of that theory. The ab
solute and irreconcilable antagonism between what is
called Biblical Theology and the modern principles of
“ Religion and Morality,” cannot be too distinctly
asserted or loudly proclaimed, if we sincerely desire
our children to have an education really consisting in
the development of their intelligence and moral sense.
Valuing the Bible highly as I do, for very much
that is very valuable in it, it is no grateful task to have
to search out and expose the characteristics which
render it an unsuitable basis for the instruction of
children, whether in morality or in religion. Such ex
posure, however, being indispensable to the solution of
the problem of our national education; to shrink from
it would be to abandon that problem as insoluble, that
education as impossible.
V.
Bearing always in mind our definition of the purpose
and method of education, namely the development of
the intelligence and moral sense by the inculcation of
“ the true, the pure, and the honest,”—bearing in mind
also the fundamental fact in human nature, that man’s
view of Deity inevitably reacts upon himself, tending
to form him in the image of his own ideal,—it is selfevident that to familiarise children with the imperfect
morality, the coarse manners and expressions, the rude
�and Modern Education.
13
fables, and the degrading ideas of Deity, appertaining to
a people low in culture—such as were the Israelites—
and to confound their minds and consciences at the most
impressible period of life by telling them that such
narratives and representations are all divinely inspired
and infallibly true,—is to utterly stultify ourselves and
the whole of the principles by which we profess to be
actuated in giving them an education at all. Did we
find any others than ourselves, say South Sea savages,
putting into the hands of their children, books containing
coarse and impure stories, detailing the morbid anatomy
of the most execrable vices, extollipg deeds prompted by
a spirit of the lowest selfishness, exulting in fraud,
rapine, and murder, and justifying whatever is most
disgraceful to humanity by representing it as prompted
or approved by their Deity, and so making Him alto
gether such an one as themselves,—surely we should say
that they must indeed be savages of the lowest and most
degraded type, and sad proofs of the utter depravity of
human nature.
In investigating from our present point of view the
contents of this most read, yet most misread, of books,
we must dismiss from our minds any idea that its most
objectionable features are amenable to revision or re
translation. The faults thus removable are but as
freckles upon the skin compared with a constitutional
taint. For it is the spirit as well as the letter of a large
portion of it, that whether “ for reproof, for correction,
or for instruction in righteousness,” is hopelessly in
fault: and the spirit of a book is of infinitely greater
importance than its superficial details.
Palpable to the eyes of all are the hideous tales of Lot
and his daughters; (Gen. xix.) Judah and Tamar;
�14
Jewish Literature
(xxxvii.) the massacre of the Shechemites; (xxxiv.)
the Levite of Ephraim; (Jud. xix.) David and Bathsheba;
(2 Sam. ix.) Amnon and his sister ; (xiii.) and whole
chapters in Leviticus and the Prophets. That such
things should be in a book given freely to children to
read, and that they should be expected notwithstanding
to grow up pure and uncontaminated in mind and habit,
is one of those anomalies in the British character which
makes it a hopeless puzzle to the world. Who can say
that much of the viciousness at present prevalent among
us, is not attributable to early curiosity being aroused
and stimulated by the obscenities of the Old Testament ?
To put the Bible as it is into the hands of our children,
is not only totally to bewilder their sense of right and
wrong,—it is to invite familiarity with the idea of the
worst Oriental vices.
Even in the case of those vices being mentioned only
to be denounced, the suggestion is apt to remain, and
the denunciation to be disregarded. It notoriously is
injudicious to put into the minds of children faults of
which they might never have thought themselves, for
the sake of admonishing them against them. It is
related somewhere that a catalogue of offences punish
able by law was once posted in the Roman forum as a
warning to the citizens; but that this was followed by
such a vast increase in the number and variety of the
crimes committed, that it was found advisable to remove
it. I myself know an instance of a pious mother sending
her daughter to a boarding-school, having first written
in her Bible a list of the chapters and passages which she
was not to read. It is remarkable how popular in the
school that particular Bible became. The other girls
were always borrowing it. There is no reason to suppose
that boys would have acted differently.
�and Modern Education.
15
It is true that the particular instances I have adduced
may not he immoral as they stand in the Bible, but they
are assuredly provocative of immorality in children who
read them. A far more serious indictment against the
Bible as a handbook of moral instruction must be founded
on its habit of representing the Deity as a consenting
party to some of the worst actions of its characters :
nay, so unreliable is it as a basis of anything what
ever, that after thus characterising the Deity, it deals in
strong denunciations against those “ who not only com
mit such things themselves, but have pleasure in them
that do them
(Rom. i. 32.) thus, by direct implication
condemning the Deity Himself. If it be desirable to
impress upon children the belief that only those “ who
fear God and work righteousness are acceptable to him,”
it is to stultify the whole principle of their education to
represent Him to them as an eastern monarch, selecting
his favourites by caprice, and independently of any merit
or demerit on their part. Yet the entire Bible rests
upon the idea that so far from being an equal Father of
all, “ whose tender mercies are over all His works,”
(Ps. cxlv. 9.) the Almighty selected out of all mankind
one race to be “ His own peculiar people,” (Deut. xiv. 9.)
and out of that race certain individuals to be His own
peculiar favourites, and this in spite of the most glaring
defects in their characters and conduct; and sustained
those whom He had thus chosen through the whole
course of their misdeeds.
Thus, Abraham is said to have had “ faith,” and this
faith is said to have been “ imputed to him for righteous
ness (Rom. iv. 22.) but how far was his actual conduct
righteous, and how much faith did it imply 1 Assured
by repeated promises of the divine favour and protection,
�i6
Jewish Literature
as well as of a great posterity through his then childless
wife Sarai, he twice voluntarily prostituted her to Pagan
chieftains, pretending that she was only his sister. And
we read that “the Lord plagued,”—not the liar and
poltroon who thus degraded his wife, and entrapped the
kings, whose hospitality he was enjoying;—not the wife
so extraordinarily ready to “ obey her husband in all
things(it appears that her age was about sixty-five on
one occasion, and ninety on the other);—but “ the Lord
plagued Pharaoh and Abimelech with great plagues be
cause of Sarai, Abraham’s wife,” and in the case of the
latter, would only grant forgiveness upon the intercession
of Abraham, saying, “ for he is a prophet.” (Gen. xii. 20.)
Isaac, we read, copied the twice committed fault of his
father, in passing off his wife Rebekah as his sister upon
another king, and was divinely blessed notwithstanding.
In short, in all three transactions, out of the whole of the
parties to them, Abraham, Isaac, Sarai, Rebekah, .the
three kings, and the Deity, those only who indicate the
possession of any moral sense whatever are the Pagan
kings, who show it in no small degree, and these alone
are punished; while Abraham and Isaac retain the divine
favour throughout, the former being honoured by the
distinctive title of “ Friend of God.” (James ii. 23.)
The selfishness and cowardice of Abraham are still
farther illustrated by his treatment of Hagar and Ish
mael. There is no reason to doubt the perfect truthful
ness of the Bible narrative in respect to him. But when
it goes on to represent the Deity as encouraging him in
his cruel and unfatherly conduct to his son, and bid
ding him follow the lead of a frivolous and heartless
wife;—“ In all that Sarai hath said unto thee, hearken
unto her voice(Gen. xxi. 12.) then our m'oral sense is
�and Modern Education.
i7
offended, and we refuse to identify the God of Abraham
with the God of our own clearer perceptions.
The utter indifference of “ the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob” to any moral law whatever, reaches its climax
in the history of Jacob. A liar and a trickster from
early youth, yet constantly enjoying the presence and
approbation of God, who finds no word or sign of re
proach wherewith to touch his conscience or arouse his
fears,—such is the patriarch whom the Bible sets forth
as one of God’s especial favourites, because, forsooth, he
had “ faith.” In presence of this mystic quality, right
and wrong sink into absolute nothingness; and that
most fatal of all impieties, a total divorce between the
.will of God and the moral law, finds its plea and justi
fication. It is little that I would give for the moral
sensibility of the child who could read without a pang of
indignation and a tear of pity the tale of this ingrained
blackleg’s atrocities ; his taking advantage of his rough,
honest-hearted brother’s extremity of exhaustion through
hunger to extort from him his birthright; (Gen.
xxv.) his heartless deception of his poor, blind old
father; (xxvii.) his repeated cheats, thefts, and false
hoods against his father-in-law; (xxx., &c.) and the
divine confirmation to him of the blessings thus fraudu
lently acquired ; “ yea, and he shall be blessed,” and con
stant assurance of the divine presence and approbation.
It is without a word of repudiation that the Bible ac
quiesces in Jacob’s degradation of the Deity to a huck
stering or bargaining God; a God, too, who can be got
the better of in a business transaction. For, “Jacob
vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me in this
way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and raiment
to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in
B
■
�i8
"Jewish Literature
peace; then shall the Lord be my God; and this stone
which I have set for a pillar shall be God’s house; and
of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth
unto thee.” (xxviii. 20, &c.)
When the Israelites reach the Promised Land, their
“ sacred history” consists of little beside perpetual but
cheries. The more directly they are represented as being
under divine guidance, the more sanguinary is their
career. Slaughter of men, women, children, infants at
the breast. None spared, none, except, sometimes—
and mark the exception made by the followers, not of
Mahomet, but of Jehovah—the unmarried girls. Every
sentiment of humanity and mercy is accounted an un
pardonable weakness. Jehovah appears as a savage
patriot-God, approving impurity, treachery, murder, and
whatever else was perpetrated on the side of his “ chosen
people.” A Bushman of South Africa being once asked
to define the difference between good and evil, replied,
“ It is good when I steal another man’s wives; evil when
another man steals mine.” Such is precisely the standard
of right and wrong laid down by the Bible in respect to
the Israelites and their neighbours. Can we wonder that
recent moralists have written to vindicate the Almighty
from the aspersions cast upon his character in the Bible.*
In all the events of the late dreadful war upon the
Continent, probably no single incident caused such a
thrill of horror as that of the wounded German soldier
who staggered from the field of battle into a peasant’s
cottage, and fell fainting upon the bed, and only lived
long enough to tell his comrades how that the woman of
the cottage had taken advantage of his helpless condition
to pick out his eyes with a fork. Possibly the French
* E.g. Theodore Parker in America, and Dr Perfitt in England.
�and Modern Education.
J9
woman had heard of the blessing pronounced upon Jael
for a similar act. Possibly she had learned from “ Sacred
History” that the most revolting perfidy and cruelty be
come heroic virtues when exercised upon one’s own side.
And were not we Europeans of to-day, with all our faults,
infinitely in advance of those bad times, we too might
find a patriot-poet rivalling the utterances of the
“divinely-inspired” Deborah, to laud the French tigress
as the Jewish one was lauded, detail with rapturous
glee every particular of the fiendish deed, and mock the
wretched victim’s mother watching and longing in vain
for her murdered son’s return.
Nay, the conduct of her whom the Bible pronounces
as “ blessed above women,” was even more flagrant in
its utter heinousness than that of the French woman.
For the husband of Jael had severed himself from the
hostile peoples; “there was peace between Jabin, the
King of Hazor, and the house of Heber, the Keliite
and he dwelt, a friendly neutral, in a region apart. The
general Sisera, moreover, utterly beaten and discomfited,
had fled expressly to Jael’s tent for safety, knowing the
family to be friendly, and she had invited him in with
assurances of protection. “ Turn in, my lord, fear not.”
(Jud. iv.)
While Abraham is described as “ the friend of God,”
to David is awarded the honour of being styled “ a man
after God’s own heart; ” (1 Sam. xiii. 14; Acts xiii. 22.)
“who turned not away from anything that he com
manded him all the days of his life, save only ” in one
particular instance. (1 Kings xv. 5.) In order to see how
little the Bible is fitted for the instruction of children in
respect of a moral sense, let us brush aside for a moment
the halo with which the name of David is surrounded,
�20
'Jewish Literature
and read his history for ourselves. It is through want
of doing this, that a popular writer has recently described
his life as uniformly “bright and beautiful up to the
time of his one great sin.”* Yet, his career, soon after
the intrepid act which first brought him into notice, was
one of rebellion and brigandage. Collecting all that were
in debt, distress, and discontent, (1 Sam. xxii. 2.) he or
ganised them into bands of freebooters to levy blackmail
upon the farmers. One of these, named Nabal, when
applied to on account of David, boldly and naturally
answered, “ Who is David ? and who is this son of Jesse?
there be many servants now-a-days that break away
every man from his master. Shall I then take my
bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed
for my shearers, and give it unto men whom I know not
whence they be ?”
However, Abigail, the wife of Nabal, touched by her
servant’s account of the gallantry of the band, took of
her husband’s stores and gave liberally to them. Upon
this David assured her that, but for her conduct, he
would not have left even a dog of Nahal’s household
alive by next morning. A few days afterwards Nabal
died; the Bible, as if to remove any suspicion of foul
play, stating that “ the Lord smote him;” when David im
mediately took Abigail to be his own wife. (1 Sam. xxv.)
When the great contest took place between the Philis
tines and the Israelites, in which the latter were utterly
routed, and Saul and Jonathan, David’s bosom friend,
were slain, David with his forces stood aloof, unheeding
the peril of his countrymen. (1 Sam. xxx.) The crown
thus devolved upon Ishbosheth the son of Saul, who was
supported by eleven out of the twelve tribes. David,
* Miss Yonge, in “ Musings on the Christian Year.”
�and Modern Education.
21
however, would not accept their choice, even though the
whole strength of Israel was needed at that critical mo
ment to withstand the Philistines. (2 Sam. ii.) Exciting
a civil war, he got himself acknowledged as king by the
dissentient tribe of Judah. Treachery and murder came
freely to his aid, and he at length found the crown of
Israel in his hands. But he felt his tenure of it insecure
so long as any descendant of Saul remained to dispute it
with him. He therefore concerted with the priests, who,
since Saul had slighted their authority, had sided with
David, a plot to get rid of the seven sons and grandsons
of Saul. The country having been for three years dis
tressed by famine, David consulted the Oracles. In
Bible phraseology, he “ inquired of the Lord.” Of what
kind of a Lord he inquired, may be judged by the re
sponse. “ It is for Saul and his bloody house, because
he slew the Gibeonites ” many years before. Upon this
the Gibeonites, duly instructed, besought of David that,
as an “ atonement,” seven males of Saul’s family should
be 11 hanged up unto the Lord.” And David took the
seven and delivered them into the hands of the Gibe
onites, five of them being sons of his own former wife
Michal, “ and they hanged them in the hill before the
Lord. . . . And after that, God was intreated for the
land.” (2 Sam. xxi. 1-14.) Revolt, treason, murder,
human sacrifices, all in the name of “ the Lord ” !
On one occasion, after defeating the Moabites, David,
we read, assembled all the people of that nation on a
plain, made them lie down, and divided them into three
groups with a line. Two of these groups he put to death,
and the other he reduced to slavery. (2 Sam. viii. 2.) The
conquered Ammonites he treated with even greater fero
city, tearing and hewing some of them in pieces with
�22
Jewish Literature
harrows, axes, and saws, and roasting others in brick
kilns. (xii. 31.) His luxury and voluptuousness equalled
his cruelty. Having had seven wives while he ruled
over Judah alone, he added to the number all those who
had belonged to Saul, (8.) and took yet more wives and
concubines after he had come from Hebron, (v. 13.) But
these, and his vast pomp, were insufficient to satiate him.
Having caught sight of Bathsheba, the wife of one of his
captains named Uriah, he took her to himself, and sent
Uriah to join the army in the field, giving express orders
to his commanding officer to place him in the fore front
of the fight to insure his being killed.
It appears that there was then in Israel an honest pro
phet named Nathan, who had the courage to remonstrate
with the king, and who did so with such effect, that
David was made, for once, to see the enormity of his
conduct. We read, however, that the Lord put away
David’s sin, so that he did not die. But his child did.
And no sooner was the innocent thus punished for the
guilty, than “ David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and
she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon; and
the Lord loved him. And he sent by the hand of
Nathan the prophet,” now subsided into the obsequious
court chaplain, “and he called his name Jedidiah,” or
“ Beloved of the Lord.” (2 Sam. xii.)
Old age and infirmity wrought no amendment in the
truculent spirit of David ; a spirit so truculent as to make
it morally impossible that he could really have been the
author of any of those psalms which in after ages it
pleased his countrymen to ascribe to him; excepting
only, perhaps, the more ferocious of them. He has been
called, “ the Byron of the Bible,” which, after what has
just been stated, seems exceedingly unfair to Byron.
�and Modern Education.
23
Early in David’s career of blood, one Shimei had, in
generous indignation, cursed him for his murder of the
sons of Saul. (2 Sam. xvi.) He had afterwards begged
forgiveness and received it. (xix. 16-23.) Yet David’s
last instructions to Solomon were in this wise—“ Behold
thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, which cursed
me with a grievous curse in the day when I came to
Mahanaim: but he came down to meet me at Jordan,
and I sware to him by the Lord, saying, I will not put
thee to death with the sword. Now, therefore, hold
him not guiltless . . . but his hoar head bring thou
down to the grave with blood. So David slept with his
fathers.” (1 Kings ii. 8-10, &c.) And Solomon “com
manded Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, which went out and
fell upon Shimei, that he died.” (46.) “ And Solomon
loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David, his
father.” And “ the Lord appeared to Solomon in a
dream by night; and God said, ask what I shall give
thee. And Solomon said, Thou hast shown unto thy
servant David, my father, great mercy, according as he
walked before thee in truth, and in righteousness, and in
uprightness of heart with thee : and thou hast kept for
him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son
to sit on his throne. . . . And God said unto him . . .
if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and
my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then
will I lengthen thy days.” (1 Kings iii.)
The mystery of these astounding utterances is not far
to seek. History in those days was the work of the
sacerdotal class. To support and subserve that class was
then, as it has been, for the most part, ever since, to be
pronounced, “ beloved of the Lord,” no matter how evil
the individual really was, or how derogatory to the di
�24
Jewish Literature
vine honour it might be to have such a preference ascribed
to it. To have “ faith ” in the priests counterbalanced
and condoned any quantity of wicked “ works.” Their
standard of right and wrong, good and evil, was that of
the Bushman. Whatever was for them was good ; what
ever was against them was evil. It is, then, for us seri
ously to ask ourselves whether, when we set before our
children as a fit object of worship such a being as the
Bible represents the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
of Samuel, David, and Solomon, to have been, we are
ministering towards the end we have in view in giving
to them an education; or whether, in place of raising
them in the scale of being, we are not rather ministering
to the total degradation in them of the human soul.
VI.
1 .
These are but a few of the instances in which the
Bible is antagonistic to one of the main objects of educa
tion, the development of the moral sense. We will now
examine how far its teaching is adapted to promote the
cultivation of the intellect, still confining ourselves to
the Old Testament.
What are the “ glorious gains ” of the modern mind,
of which we are justly proud, and what are the ideas re
specting the constitution of the universe, the recognition
of which we regard as necessary to entitle any one to
the appellation of an intelligent and educated person 1
Surely they are that the order of nature is invariable,
the whole universe being governed by laws so perfectly
appointed as to need no rectification, and fixed so inher
ently in it as to constitute its nature. That, though in
capable of interference from without, inasmuch as there
�and Modern Education.
25
can be no without, all things proceeding from within
from its divine immanent character,—its parts are en
dowed with a capacity of advancing by a process of con
tinual evolution to a degree ever higher of complexity
and organisation, as within the physical structure rises
the mental, with all its capabilities of moral, intellectual,
and spiritual, in grandeur surpassing the majesty of the
whole external Cosmos. That it is a low and degrading
superstition to regard deity as other than One, ever liv
ing and operating equally and impartially throughout the
whole domain of existence; or as dwelling apart from
the world, and only occasionally giving proof of his being
by disturbance of the general order. And that,—while it
is impossible truly to ascribe to him aught of feeling cor
responding to the love, hate, fear, passion, caprice, appe
tite, or other affection of men,—when for purposes of
instruction or devotion we seek to utilise the anthropo
morphic tendency of our nature, He is to be represented
as the absolute impersonation of all that we recognise as
best in Humanity.
To what depths do we fall when, abandoning these
hard-won gains of the Intellect’s long warfare against
ignorance, barbarism, and superstition, instead of placing
our children upon the vantage ground we have acquired,
and handing to them our lights at the point which we
ourselves have attained, that they may carry them on
yet further, we abuse their understandings at the most
impressible age, by compelling them to regard the
Almighty as no equal God and Father of the whole
human race, but the exclusive patron of a small Semitic
tribe dwelling in Palestine, whom he supported by
prodigies and miracles in their aggressions upon their
neighbours, revealing to them alone the light of his
�26
'Jewish Literature
word, and condemning all others to enforced darkness.
By teaching them to believe in magic and witchcraft,
in talismans, charms, and vows; in beasts speaking
with human voices and sentiments; (Gen. iii. 1-4;
Num. xxii. 28-30.) in a deity writing with a finger; (Ex.
xxxi. 18.) speaking with a voice; (xix. 19.) enjoying
the smell of roast meat; (Gen. viii. 21.) standing face to
face ; (xxxii. 30.) walking in a garden ; (iii. 8.) revealing
his hinder parts; (Ex. xxxiii. 23.) coming down to obtain
information as to what men were doing, and to devise
measures in accordance therewith; (Gen. xi. 5-7 ; xviii.
20, 21.) impressing men, not through their consciences,
but by signs and wonders, miracles and dreams; recog
nising and confirming advantages gained by fraud, to the
irreparable disadvantage of their rightful owner; (Gen.
xxvii. 33-37.) in the case of one deliverer of his chosen
people, making his strength depend upon the length of
his hair; (Jud. xvi. 17.) allowing another, in virtue of
a hasty vow, to offer up his daughter in human sacrifice
as a burnt-offering; (xi. 30-39 ; Num. xxx.) and, lastly,
teaching them to believe in man created perfect, and
yet unable to resist the first and smallest temptation;
and, for such a peccadillo as the eating of the fruit of a
magical tree, being with his whole unborn progeny so
ferociously damned as to be redeemable only by another
human sacrifice, even the stupendous sacrifice of God’s
only Son.
How utterly bewildering to the expanding intelligence
of youth to be told that the God whom they are to
worship is revealed in the Bible, and to find him such a
being as this ! Terrible indeed is their responsibility
who proclaim as divinely infallible every absurd or
monstrous narrative to be found in the fragmentary
�and Modern Education.
legends of a barbarous and imaginative people. When
we consider how great is the difficulty of detaching the
mind from pernicious ideas when imprinted on it in
childhood, and fitting it to receive the later revelations
of reason and morality, we can but shudder at the sum
of misery undergone in the conflict between the Intellect
and the Conscience, through the former having com
menced its onward march, while the latter still continues
bound to the beliefs of childhood. A very Nessus-shirt
of burning poison and agony to all generations of
Christendom, has been the garb of ancient faith which we
have adopted and worn, in spite of its being totally
unfitted to us.
VII.
It is a practice with many savage tribes to invest some
object with certain magical properties, altogether inde
pendent of its real qualities, and to worship this with a
blind adoration, the whole process being known by the
name of Fetich-worship.
Now what else than precisely such Fetich-worship is
theirs who would put up a book to be venerated, but
refuse to allow it to be made comprehensible by any
kind of interpretation ? Yet, of all the Resolutions
considered by the School-board, that for which the
country at largS manifested the strongest preference at
the elections was the proposition “that the Bible be
read in the schools, but without note or comment.”
It can only be the absence of any precise notion as to
what education consists in that has prompted a sugges
tion so utterly opposed to any sort of wholesome de
velopment. To suggest difficulties—such difficulties—
�28
'Jewish Literature
and forbid their explanation ! Better far that the
children read the Bible in the original tongues at once,
than in the “ authorised version.” They might not get
much good from the process, but they would assuredly
get less harm.
But we will test the working of this suggestion by a
few out of the numerous instances of apparent contra
diction which, “ without note or comment,” cannot fail
to plunge youthful readers in hopeless perplexity.
And first, concerning the Deity, we read that “ God
saw everything that he had made, and behold it was
very good.” (Gen. i. 31.) This was said after the
creation of man, when the character and liabilities of
that creation must have been fully known to God.
Yet we are told soon after that “ it repented the Lord
that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him
at his heart; (iv. 6.) implying that he was surprised and
disappointed at the way man had turned out, having
expected better things of him : implying, too, that the
divine prescience was at fault, the divine work a failure.
And in many other passages we read of the Deity as
repenting and changing his mind; being weary and
resting. Yet elsewhere in the same book it is declared
that “ God is not a man that he should repent;” (Num.
xxxiii. 19.) being one “with whom is no variable
ness, neither shadow of turning;” (Jam. i. 17.) “who
fainteth not, neither is weary.” (Is. xl. 28 ; also 1 Sam.
xv, 35 ; Jonah iii. 10 ; Ex. xxxiii. 1 ; &c.)
Even the all-important questions of God’s justice and
power remain in suspense with such passages as these
unreconciled : “ A God of truth and without iniquity,
just and right is he.” (Deut. xxxii. 4.) “ Hear now, 0
house of Israel; are not my ways equal ? are not your
�and Modern Education.
29
ways unequal ? Therefore I will judge you.............
every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God.”
“ The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.”
(Ez. xviii. 20, 25-30.) And, “ I . . . . am a jealous
God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children.” (Ex. xx. 5.) Also, “For the children being
not yet bom, neither having done any good or evil, that
the purpose of God according to election might stand,
not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto
her (by God), the elder shall serve the younger. As it
is written, Jacob have I loved (Jacob !) but Esau have I
hated.” (Eom. ix. 11-13 ; Gen. ix. 25 ; Matt. xiii. 11-17.)
How, moreover, are children to reconcile this with the
declaration that “God is no respecter of persons?”
And while, notwithstanding that “ with God all things
are possible,” (Matt. xix. 25.) we are told that “ the
Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants
of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabi
tants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”
(Jud. i. 19 ; Josh. xvii. 18.) Also that the inhabitants
of Meroz were bitterly cursed “because they came not
to the help of the Lord against the mighty.” (Jud. v. 23.)
Notwithstanding that we read in several places that
God was seen face to face, and his voice heard, (Gen. iii.
9, 10 ; xxxii. 30; Ex. xxiv. 9-11; xxxiii. 11 ; Is. vi. 1.)
we are yet assured that “ no man hath seen God at any
time; ” (John i. 18.) hath “ neither heard his voice at any
time, nor seen his face.” (v. 37.) And God himself said
unto Moses, “ Thou canst not see my face; for there shall
no man see me and live.” (Ex. xxiii. 20.) And Paul
speaks of him as one “ whom no man hath seen, nor can
see.” (1 Tim. vi. 16.)
It is little that children will learn from the Bible con
�3°
Jewish Literature
cerning the origin of evil, when, against “ I make peace
and create evil. I the Lord do all these things;” (Is.
xiv. 7.) “ out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good ?” (Lam. iii. 38.)—they set, “ with
out note or comment,” “ God is not the author of con
fusion;” (1 Cor. xiv. 33.) “a God of truth, and without
iniquity, just and right is he.” (Deut. xxxii. 4.) “God
cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any
man.” (Jas. i. 13.)
Concerning the divine dwelling-place, we read that
“ the Lord appeared to Solomon, and said ... I have
chosen and sanctified this house . . . and mine eyes and
heart shall be there perpetually.” (2 Chron. vii. 12-16.)
Yet we also read, “ Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not
in temples made with hands.” (Acts vii. 48.) In one
place he is described as “ dwelling in light which no man
can approach;” (1 Tim. iv. 16.) and in another it is
said, “ clouds and darkness are round about him.” (Ps.
xcvii. 2.)
Similarly contrast these also: “ The Lord is a man of
war(Ex. xv. 3.) “ The Lord mighty in battle(Ps.
xxiv. 8.) “ The Lord of hosts is his name.” (Is. li. 15.)
And, “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.” (1
Cor. xiv. 33.) “ Bloody men shall not live out half their
days.” (Ps. lv. 23.) “ The God of peace be with you all.”
(Rom. xv. 33.)
In reference to the making and worshipping of images,
we have the positive command, “ Thou shalt not make
unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything
that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath. Thou
shalt not bow down to them, nor serve (or worship)
them,” (Ex. xxii. 4.) and many repeated denunciations
of idolatry. Yet Moses was commanded to “ make two
�and Modern Education.
31
cherubim of gold.” (xxv. 18.) Also, “ the Lord said
unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a
pole, and it shall come to pass that every one that is
bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.” (Num. xxi. 8.)
A direct act of idolatry commanded by God himself!
The books of Exodus and Leviticus abound in direc
tions instituting and regulating sacrifice, in terms such
as “ Thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin-offering
for atonement;” (Ex. xxix. 36; also xviii.; Lev. i. 9;
xxiii. 27, &c.) and the most complex and gorgeous
system of ceremonial worship was based upon it, ex
pressly by divine command. Yet in the Psalms we find
the Almighty exclaiming, “ Will I eat the flesh of bulls,
or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanks
giving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High.” (Ps. 1.
13, 14.) And in Isaiah, “To what purpose is the mul
titude of your sacrifices unto me ? saith the Lord . . .
I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of
he-goats . . . When ye come to appear before me, who
hath required this at your hand ? Bring no more vain
oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new
moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot
away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.”
(Is. i. 11-13.) And Jeremiah represents the Almighty
as positively repudiating any connection with the Levitical code. “ I spake not unto your fathers, nor com
manded them in the day that I brought them out of the
land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices.”
(Gen. vii. 22.)
“ Without note or comment,” children would assuredly
fail to comprehend the significance of the antagonism
necessarily existing between the whole sacerdotal
class, with its “ trivial round” of ritual and observance,
�32
Jewish Literature
and immoral doctrine of compensation for moral de
ficiencies by material payments, and the honest, out
spoken prophet or teacher of practical religion. And to
fail to comprehend this, is to fail to learn one of the
most valuable lessons to be derived from the Bible.
Even the horrible practice of human sacrifice finds
justification with the sacerdotal followers of the Jewish
divinity. We have already seen how, backed by the
priests, David delivered up the seven sons and grandsons
of Saul, “ and they hanged them in the hill before the
Lord . . . and after that God was entreated for the
land.” (2 Sam. xxi.) Moreover, “God said unto Abra
ham, take now thy son, thine only son Isaac . . . and
offer him fora burnt-offering.” (Gen. xxii. 2.) Jephthah,
too, “ vowed a vow unto the Lord” that he would “ offer
up for a burnt-offering” whatever he met first on his re
turn home, provided the Lord would give him a victory.
The victory was given, and the bargain was kept; “ the
Lord,” of course, being in his omniprescience, well aware
what it involved; and, to judge by his antecedent and
subsequent conduct, by no means incapable of being in
duced thereto by the magnitude of the bribe. Jephthah’s
own daughter was the first to come to congratulate her
father j “ and he did with her according to his vow.”
(Jud. xi.) The sacerdotal law gave him no choice, for it
positively enacted that vows, however iniquitous, were
not to be broken, except when taken under certain cir
cumstances by a maid, a wife, or a widow. (Num. xxx.)
The liberality and mercifulness of God find expression
in many touching declarations in the Scriptures. We
read that “ every one that asketh, receiveth, and he that
seeketh, findeth.” (Matt. vii. 8.) “ Those that seek me
early shall find me.” (Prov. viii. 17.) Yet on the other
�and Modern Education,
33
side we have, “ Then shall they call upon me, but I will
not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not
find me.” (i. 28.) And notwithstanding such assertions
as: “The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.” (James
v. 11.) “He doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the
children of men.” (Lam. iii. 33.) “ The Lord is good to
all, and his tender mercies are over all his works.” (Ps.
cxlv. 9.) “I have no pleasure in the death of him that
dieth, saith the Lord God.” (Ezek. xviii. 32.) “ God is
love;” (1 John iv. 16.) “Who will have all men to be
saved;” (1 Tim. ii. 4.) “For his mercy endureth for
ever;” (1 Chron. xvi. 34, &c.)—we find also the following
ferocious utterances : “ The Lord thy God is a consuming
fire.” (Deut. iv. 34.) “ I will dash them one against
another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the
the Lord. I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy,
but destroy them.” (Jer. xiii. 14.) “And thou shalt
consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall
deliver thee: thine eye shall have no pity upon them.”
(Deut. vii. 16, and 2.) “ Thus saith the Lord of hosts , . .
slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and
sheep, camel and ass.” (1 Sam. xv. 2, 3.) “ Because they
had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of
the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men.
And the people lamented because the Lord had smitten
many of the people with great slaughter.” (1 Sam. vi. 19.)
" I also will deal in fury; mine eye shall not spare,
neither will I have pity. And though they cry in mine
ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them.” (Ezek.
viii. 18.) “And the Lord said, Go through the city and
smite; let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: slay
utterly old and young, both maids and little children,
and women. . . . and begin at my sanctuary.” (ix. 4-6.)
c
�34
'Jewish Literature
It is no less impossible to derive from the Bible alone
any- certainty of God’s unfailing truthfulness than of his
mercy. It is true that we are told, “It is impossible for
God to lie.” (Heb. vi. 18.) “ Lying lips are an abomina
tion to the Lord.” (Prov. xii. 22.) “‘Thou shalt not
bear false witness against thy neighbour.” (Ex. xx. 16.)
“ These things doth the Lord hate ... a lying tongue
. . . a false witness that speaketh lies.” (Prov. iv. 17-19.)
And, “ all liars shall have their part in the lake which
burneth with fire and brimstone.” (Rev. xxi. 8.) Yet,
on the other hand, we find the lies of the Israelitish
women in Egypt, and of Rahab in Jericho, justified;—
“ that admirable falsehood,” as St. Chrysostom called
the latter. (Ex. i. 18-20; Josh. ii. 4-6.) We find the
atrocious deceit of Jael more than justified. (Jud. iv. v.)
And we have also this astounding revelation from behind
the scenes in heaven :—“ And the Lord said, who shall
persuade Ahab 1 . . . And there came forth a spirit and
stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.
And the Lord said, wherewith 1 And he said, I will go
forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy
prophets. And he said, thou shalt persuade him, and
prevail also; go forth and do so. Now, therefore, be
hold the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all
these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil con
cerning thee.” (1 Kings xxii. 21-23.) And in confirma
tion of this otherwise incredible narrative, we read later,
“ If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a
thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will
stretch out mine hand upon him, and will destroy him
from the midst of my people.” (Ezek. xiv. 9.) The New
Testament adopts a similar view of God’s dealings; for,
mingled with its “ glad tidings of salvation,” we read,—
�and Modern Education.
35
“ God shall send them strong delusion, that they should
believe a lie, that they all might be damned.” (2 Thess.
ii. 11, 12.)
Once more it must be asked, Can we wonder that
earnest and pious men of our own times have, in their
zeal for the honour of God, endeavoured to rescue his
character from the treatment it receives in the Scriptures ?
VIII.
The character of Jesus is as variously drawn in the
New Testament as that of the Deity in the Old; and
those who desire the children in our schools to recognise
in him the perfect man and infallible Teacher, should, to
be consistent, be the very last to wish them to read the
New Testament “ without note or comment.” Too often
it happens that the explanatory lessons with which the
Scriptures are accompanied, are utterly pernicious, and
even blasphemous. This very year, a youth who has
been for some years a student in one of the wealthiest of
our public foundation-schools, was required to give some
instances of human feeling on the part of Jesus. Of
the value, whether intellectually or religiously, of the
education given at that school, we may judge by
his answer. Of the tender sympathy shown by Jesus
towards all who were suffering : of his unselfish devotion
to the cause of the poor and the depraved; of his noble
indignation against injustice and oppression; of his in
tense sense of a personal Father in God, and instinctive
detestation of all sacerdotal interference;—of all these so
eminently human characteristics, our scholar said nothing.
The result of his compulsory attendance at the school
chapel every morning, and at two full services every
�26
"Jewish Literature
Sunday, beside much other Scripture instruction, was to
impress upon him the belief that whatever is human is
bad, and whatever is bad is human. He concluded,
therefore, that by human feeling on the part of Jesus,
an instance of something bad was intended. And he
actually sent up for answer, as a solitary instance of
human feeling on the part of Jesus, the story of his losing
his temper, and cursing a fig-tree for being barren when
it was not the season for figs 1 (Mark xi. 13, 14, 21.)
As any explanations which accompany the reading of
the Old Testament should be contrived to disabuse chil
dren of the notion that the Deity could ever have been
such a being as is there described, so in reading of Jesus
in the New Testament they should be told that there are
indications of a better man than the Gospels make him,
peeping out through the corrupted text. “ It is impos
sible that such love and devotion as followed him through
out his life could ever have been won by a hard, unjust,
or intolerant character.” Yet he is represented as more
than once addressing his admirable and devoted mother
in a rough, unfilial tone; (John ii. 4; Luke ii. 4.) and
launching most uncalled for reproaches at a gentleman of
whose hospitality he was partaking, on the occasion of a
woman coming in and washing his feet with her tears,
and wiping them with her hair. (Luke vii. 32-50.)
Nor can there be any doubt as to what must be their
natural judgment of the spirit of one who could describe
his own mission in these terms : “ Whosoever shall con
fess me before men, him will I also confess before my
Father which is in heaven. But whosoever will deny
me before men, him will I also deny before my Father
which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to
send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a
�and Modern Education.
yj
sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against
his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man’s
foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matt. x. 32-36.)
Hardly will they reconcile this with the promise of his
birth-song, “On earth peace, good-will toward men;”
(Luke ii. 14.) but will hastily conclude that the angels
were sadly misinformed. And when they read that one
who is elsewhere described as “ going about teaching and
healing” among a people who were “ perishing for lack
of knowledge,” uttered to his disciples such words as
these, “ Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of
the kingdom of God : but unto others in parables ; that
seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not
understand;” (Luke viii. 8.) and read further, “ Therefore
they could not believe, because he hath blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart; that they should not see with
their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be con
verted, and I should heal them; ” (John xii. 39, 40.)—and
from these fearful utterances, turn to the declaration, that
this same Jesus had received “ all power in heaven and
earth;” (Matt, xxviii. 18.) and that he “ came not to judge
but to save the world;” (John xii. 27.) came especially
“ to seek and to save that which was lost;” (Luke xix. 10.)
it will be no wonder if their souls finally succumb to
despair, and they cry to their teachers, “ Be merciful:
take away from us this book, if you dare not explain to
us its meaning.”
IX.
I shall conclude the present lecture by pointing out
the notable contradiction apparent between the Bible
�38
"Jewish Literature
and the fact of the world’s present existence. The New
Testament contains scarcely a passage of any length that
does not make some allusion to the near approach of the
end of the world.
We may conceive the perplexity of children when,
after reading in ordinary history the events of the last
eighteen hundred years, with their piteous tale of cruelty
and oppression, disease and death, they open their
Bibles and read that, all those centuries ago, men were
summoned to repent because “ the kingdom of heaven ”
was then “at hand;” (Matt. iv. 17.) and find that by
“ the kingdom of heaven ” was meant, not merely a social
or moral regeneration, though the phrase is sometimes
used in this sense, but the personal second coming of
Christ, and end of all things. That both the Baptist and
Jesus preached thus : that the twelve apostles were sent
forth to preach thus; (x. 7.) that the seventy were
charged with injunctions to announce to the inhabitants
of any city-on their entry, “the kingdom of God is
come nigh unto you (Luke x. 8-11.) that Jesus repre
sented himself as a nobleman who had gone into a far
country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return;
and instructed his disciples in these terms, “ Occupy till
I come (xix. 13.) that this was the kingdom for which
Joseph of Arimathea “ waited (xxiii. 51.) unto which
Paul prayed that he might be preserved; (2 Tim. iv. 18.)
charging Timothy to “ keep the commandment.............
until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Tim.
vi. 14.)
How bewildering to the youthful intelligence, to per
ceive the world still going on much in its old track,
slowly elaborating its own destiny, and to find in the
records of its history no trace of the dread phenomena
�and Modern Education.
39
which they read in their Testaments were to portend
and accompany the return of the Son of Man and of God,
—the darkened sun, the falling stars, the bloodshot
moon, the roaring sea, the myriad hosts of heaven, the
voice of the archangel, and the trump of God; the
judgment of the quick and dead, the wailing of the lost,
and the gathering of the elect from the four winds of
heaven, the resurrection of those who slept, the ecstasy
of “we who remain,” as Paul said, (1 Thess. iv. 15-17.)
when “ caught up to meet the Lord in the air,” on his
“ coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great
glory;” (Matt. xxiv. 29-35.) for which all the disciples
were bid to watch ; (Mark xiii. 37.) and which some of
them were still to be alive on earth to see. For Jesus
had said, " Verily I say unto you, that there be some of
them that stand here now which shall not taste of death
till they have seen the kingdom of God come with
power.” (Matt. xvi. 28; Mark xi. 1; Luke xix. 27.)
“ Immediately after the tribulation of those days
and,
“ Verily I say unto you, this generation shall notpassaway,
until all these things shall be fulfilled.” (Matt. xxiv. 29,
35.) Add, too, the assurance of the angels to the disci
ples as they stood watching the Ascension, that he should
return “ in like manner;” (Acts i. 11.) add the declara
tion of Peter that “the end of all things is at hand;”
(1 Pet. iv. 7.) add the admonition of Paul to the
Romans, “ Now it is high time to awake out of sleep,
for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
The night is far spent, the day is at hand;” (Rom. xiii.
11, 12.) “ these last days;” (Heb. i. 2.) even the days of
us “ upon whom the ends of the world are come ; ” (1 Cor.
x. 11.) add, lastly, the final book of “The Revelation,”
opening with the announcement that these things “ must
�40
'Jewish Literature
shortly come to pass •” and concluding with the declara
tion, “ Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come,
Lord Jesus,”—a book which, claiming to be the final
utterance of divine truth, is charged with dire curses
against any who should add to it; instead of saying,
rather, “to be continued, so long as God continues to
work in man,”—add, I say, to all that has been set forth,
these and the yet other numerous similar intimations of
the then expected rapidly approaching end ; set children
to read them “ without note or comment,” but with the
belief which they will inevitably acquire, from the fact
of the Bible being put into their hands without informa
tion to the contrary,—the belief that it must therefore
be all infallibly true, that God did speak, the Lord did
say, all the things therein ascribed to him; and then,
if they retain any particle of intelligence whatever, most
surely they will have but a confused idea of God, a con
fused idea of man, and a confused idea of the relations
between them; a confused idea of right and wrong, a
confused idea of faith and fact; or rather, we may con
fidently declare, a false and pernicious idea of all things
whatsoever, in heaven and earth, from beginning to end.
�and Modern Education.
LECTURE THE SECOKD.
X.
It is not unusual for people, when pressed upon the
subject, to say, “ We do not lay much store by the Old
Testament. We concede much of what you say against
it as a teacher of morality and even of religion. We
value it chiefly as the basis and introduction of the New.
It is upon the New Testament that we take our stand.
The sufficient, and only sufficient, rule of life, its prac
tical religion and morality, are distinct and unimpeach
able.” I propose, therefore, to conclude my examination
of the effects of the popular proposition, “ that the Bible
be read without note or comment,” by showing that in
respect of its teaching, both religious and moral, even
the New Testament requires elucidation and correction
to prevent it from being productive of much that would
be immoral, irreligious, and grossly superstitious.
Passing over the innumerable discrepancies in the
gospel narratives, to reconcile which so many “ Har
monies ” have been constructed in vain, let us compare
first those utterances of the New Testament which have
regard to life—civil, political, and social. Are our chil
dren to learn from its pages to grow up to be intelligent
and independent citizens, respecting the laws, and re
�42
Jewish Literature
specting themselves ? It is clear that, “ without note or
comment,” they will hardly escape great perplexity of
conscience when on one side they read, “ Be subject to
principalities and powers, obey magistrates.” (Tit. iii. 1.)
“ Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit
yourselves.” (Heb. xiii. 17.) “The powers that be are
ordained of God. Whoso therefore resisteth the power,
resisteth the ordinance of God:” (Rom. xiii. 1, 2.) and
on the other side, find, that no sooner did a dilemma
arise, than “ Peter and the other apostles answered and
said, We ought to obey God rather than man.” (Acts
v. 29.)
Concerning the institution of Slavery, we find in the
Old Testament the most conflicting utterances, of which
one is, “ Of the children of the strangers that do sojourn
among you, of them shall ye buy . . . and they shall be
your possession. . . . They shall be your bondmen for
ever(Lev. xxv. 45, 46.) and another, “ Thou shalt
neither vex a stranger nor oppress him (Ex. xxxii. 21.)
both of which are in the books ascribed to Moses. While
the New Testament contains no direct reprobation of
Slavery, but rather the reverse. It must be remembered
that, wherever in our translation the word servant occurs,
the original means slave. And while masters are enjoined
to “ give unto their slaves that which is just and equal”
for their labour, and to “ forbear threatening ” them;
(Col. iv. 1; Eph. vi. 9.) it says nothing in repudiation
of the institution itself as being unjust and unequal;
but repeatedly admonishes slaves to be content with
their condition ; to “ count their masters worthy of all
honour (1 Tim. vi. 1.) and be “ obedient to them with
fear and trembling.” (Eph. vi. 5.) We read, moreover,
that Paul himself sent back to his master the slave Onesimus, after converting him to Christianity. (Philemon.)
�and Modern Education.
43
There are, indeed, ample grounds for fearing lest all
respect for Rights vanish in the prominence given exclu
sively to Duties. And even in the important matter of
respect and affection for parents and relatives, children
may fail to find a sufficient rule to exclude hesitation.
It is true that they read, “ Honour thy father and
mother,” for the low and unsatisfactory motive, “ that
thy days may be long.” (Ex. xx. 12.) “Husbands love
your wives.” (Eph. v. 25.) And “whoso hateth his
brother is a murderer.” (1 John iii. 15.) But there is to
be set on the other side this of Jesus himself, “ If any
man hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and chil
dren, and brethren, and sisters ... he cannot be my
disciple.” (Luke xiv. 26.)
Great will be their perplexity, too, when, after the
ordinary lessons of the schoolroom, inculcating respect
for property, the duty of industry, forethought, and thrift,
the disgrace of beggary, and evil of pauperism, they read
“ without note or comment,” “ Take therefore no thought
for the morrow“Lay not up for yourselves treasures
upon earth.” (Matt. vi. 34,19.) “ Sell whatsoever thou hast
and give to the poor;” (Mark x. 21.) and see how Jesus
backed up his communistic precepts by his practice, in
instituting the order of Mendicant Friars, by sending
forth the Twelve and the Seventy with injunctions to
“ carry neither purse nor scrip.” (Luke x. 3-7, &c.)
Neither can we consistently endeavour to cherish in
children a love of science, literature, and art, and all the
glorious uses of which man’s high faculties are capable ;
a love, in short, of that mental culture to obtain which
we expressly send them to school; if we ply them with
such contemptuous allusions to it as “ Beware lest any
man spoil you with philosophy and vain deceit; ” (Col.
�44
'Jewish Literature
ii. 8.) “The Greeks seek after wisdom ;” (1 Cor. i. 22.)
“ Vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so
called;” (1 Tim. vi. 20.) “Knowledge puffeth up;” (1
Cor. viii. 1.)—without telling them at the same time,
that ignorance ever “ puffeth up ” far more than know
ledge; that “science,” now-a-days stands on a very dif
ferent basis to that on which it stood in those days,
namely, on a basis of positive fact as ascertained by
actual investigation into the phenomena of the universe,
instead of on the imaginations and foregone conclusions
of men who believed in the infallibility of their mental
impressions, and pretended to knowledge independently
of experience; and that it is our highest duty and pri
vilege to cultivate “ every good gift and every perfect
gift,” intellectual and other, “ which cometh down from
the Father of lights.” (Jam. i. 17.)
Even in so simple a matter as the advantage of bear
ing a good character, they will be at a loss to determine
between “a good name is better than precious oint
ment ;” (Eccl. vii. 1.) “ it is rather to be chosen than
great riches;” (Prov. xxii. 1.) and, “Woe unto you
when all men shall speak well of you.” (Luke vi. 25.)
The Bible makes it a reproach to King Asa that “ in
his disease he sought not to the Lord, but to the physi
cians,” and significantly adds, “Asa slept with his
fathers.” (2 Chron. xvi. 12.) Of another patient it is
said that she had “ for twelve years suffered many things
of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and
was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,” but straight
way was healed through faith. (Mark v. 25-29.) And
there is this express injunction, “ Is any sick among you?
let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them
pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the
�and Modern Education.
45
Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the
Lord shall raise him up.” (Jam. v. 14.) “Without note
or comment,” but influenced, unconsciously perhaps,
within school or without it, to regard the plain teaching
of the Bible as intended to be followed unshrinkingly,
the children in our National Schools will be apt to grow
up with the belief that it is unchristian and wicked to
call in a doctor, or to take medicine, when they are ill.
Lawyers are scarcely named but to be censured in
such terms as these: “Woe unto you lawyers ! for ye
lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye your
selves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
Woe unto you lawyers I” (Luke xi. 45, 52.) For “with
out note or comment,” the term rendered “ lawyers,” will
inevitably be held to signify, not the expounders of Rab
binical doctrine, but the members of that eminent profes
sion which is so indispensable to the maintenance of our
rights and privileges. While the despised “ publicans ”
of Jewish times, instead of being recognised as mere
collectors of taxes, are sure to be confounded with our
own respectable company of “ licensed victuallers.”
We have seen how summarily two of the learned pro
fessions may be disposed of. Following the Bible with
out guidance by “ note or comment,” the clergy will be
in danger of faring little better than the lawyers or doc
tors. And this brings us to the subject of religious
duties as laid down in the New Testament.
It is, whether rightly or wrongly I do not venture to
decide, a subject of peculiar pride with us, that we are a
prayerful and churchgoing people. But what is really
curious is, that the practice of assembling together for pub
lic worship, we regard as essential to our character as Chris
tians. Now, how can children be expected to understand
�46
Jewish Literature
“without note or comment” that it is their duty to
attend “ divine service,” when they find that Jesus, who is
held up to them as the infallible pattern and guide of life,
never joined in public prayer himself, but always when
he wished to pray or meditate went apart, either “ up
into a mountain,” (Matt. xiv. 23.) or some other “ solitary
place,” (Mark i. 35.) or “ withdrew about a stone’s cast
(Luke xxii. 24.) that he only went into the synagogue or
the temple to read or to teach ; (Luke iv. 16: Matt. xxi.
23.) or to indulge in what to children and unexplained
must appear to be riotous conduct in church, namely to
drive out with blows and threats a number of persons
who were exercising a lawful industry in its precincts;
(Matt. xxi. 12.) that the persons he mentioned in one of
his parables as “ going up to the temple to pray,” (Luke
xviii. 10.) belonged to the classes he most persistently de
nounced, being a pharisee and a publican; and even these
he distinctly exonerates from the reproach of having
joined in common prayer ; that moreover, in addition to
his example, he delivered precepts absolutely prohibitory
of all public praying in these emphatic terms: “ When
thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for
they love to pray standing in the synagogues, and in the
corners of the streets to be seen of men. Verily, I say
unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou
prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut
thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy
Father which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly;”
(Matt. vi. 5, 6.)—a rule which he relaxed only on the
condition that two, or at most three, should agree upon
a subject for petition, in which case they might gather
together in his name. (Matt, xviii. 19, 20.) It is indeed
a painful perplexity in which the minds of the more sen
�- .<N
and Modern Education.
47
sitive children will be plunged when they ask themselves
how, in the face of Christ’s most positive precepts and
example, they can continue to pray in church or chapel,
and at the same time deserve to be called by his name.
The propriety of continuing to observe the Sabbath, if
rested on the Bible alone, will remain, to say the least,
doubtful. The difference in the reasons assigned for its
institution can hardly fail to create wonder as to the
authority upon which the command said to be “ written
with the finger of God” himself, basing the appointment
upon the creation of the universe in six days, (Ex. xxxi.
17, &c.) was changed to one representing it as a memo
rial of the deliverance out of Egypt. (Deut. v. 15.)
While the institution itself is, on account of the abuses
to which it led, referred to variously by the later pro
phets ; and, in the New Testament, seems to have been
repudiated in a great measure, if not altogether, by Jesus
and the apostles; Paul distinctly admonishing the Colossians in these terms : “You hath Christ quickened. . .
blotting out the handwriting of ordinances. . . Let
no man therefore judge you . . in respect of an holi
day, . . or of the Sabbath.” (Col. ii. 13-16.) So that
something at any rate has to be added to the New Tes
tament to justify our present usage in this respect.
In the absence of explanatory comment, the statements
of scripture respecting the resurrection of the body appear
in direct conflict with each other; as also do those re
specting the after-life of the soul. In the Old Testament
we are told, “ He that goeth down £0 the grave shall
come up no more.” (Job vii. 9.) “The dead know not
anything, neither have they any more reward.” (Eccl. ix.
5, 10.) And in the New Testament, “ The trumpet shall
sound, and the dead shall be raised(1 Cor. xv. 52.)
�48
Jewish Literature
“Then shall he reward every man according to his
works.” (Matt. xvi. 27.) While the narratives of the
ascent of Enoch and Elijah seem to find a positive con
tradiction in the declaration of Jesus, “No man hath
ascended up to heaven but he that came down from
heaven, even the son of man;” and the narrative makes
him add, “ which is in heaven,” putting what appears to
be an absurd contradiction into the mouth of Jesus.
(John iii. 12.)
And even concerning the status of Jesus himself, expla
nations are needed to reconcile the various contradictory
declarations; “I and my Father are one.” (John x. 30.)
“ He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”
(Phil. ii. 6.) “ Jesus increased in wisdom and stature,
and in favour with God and man.” (Luke ii. 52.) “ My
Father is greater than I.” (John xiv. 28.) “ Of that day
and that hour knoweth no man. . . Neither the Son,
but the Father.” (Mark xiii. 32.) And his agonised ex
clamation when dying, which we can easily believe to
have been held up by the clergy of those days as uttered
in remorse of soul for a life spent in opposition to the
church orthodoxy of his country,—“ My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me ?” (Matt, xxvii. 46.)
XI.
Much stress has been laid by orthodox writers on the
“ Continuity,” or uninterrupted connection, of Scripture.
The inference which they have drawn from the con
sistency existing between its various parts, is that it
must all be alike the result of one divine harmonious
scheme. That such Continuity exists it is impossible to
help seeing, but the extent to which it exists, and its
�and Modern Education.
49
significance in relation to what is called doctrinal
religion, are likely, “ without note or comment,” wholly
to escape the observation of youthful scholars.
The whole religious system of the Old Testament rests
upon the theory that the object of Religion is, not the
exaltation of man, but the delectation of the Deity; and
the stimulants offered in it to the practice of religion are
of the most material and seductive kind, wealth, honour,
long life, numerous posterity. In the New Testament
the same idea is continued, with this difference, that
experience having demonstrated the theory to be unsound
as regards this life, inasmuch as prosperity does not by
any means always accompany virtue, nor adversity vice,
rewards and punishments are there reserved for a future
state of existence, in a region inaccessible to verification
by experience.
Two other instances of Continuity between the two
divisions of Scripture may be classed together as being
intimately connected with each other. These are, the
institution of Sacrifice, and the character of the Jewish
Deity. To the instances already given of the amazing
ferocity of this Being, as represented in the Sacred Books
of the Jews, may be added the tremendous threats and
penalties denounced for the smallest transgressions, the
readiness to dart forth from the mountain and deal
destruction upon any who might but touch it; and the
perpetual demand for blood. This propensity for blood
constitutes a notable instance of Continuity in the
character of the God of the Bible. Blood of animals;
blood of peoples hostile to the Israelites; blood of
transgressors among the Israelites; and in numerous
instances, blood of unoffending men, women, and
children, even from among his own chosen people.
�50
'Jewish Literature
(1 Sam. vi. 19 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 15 ; Ezek. ix. 6 ; &c.) We
have already dealt with David’s sacrifice of the seven
sons of Saul: “ They hanged them in the hill before
the Lord. .... and after that God was entreated for
the land;” (2 Sam. xxi.) Jephthah’s sacrifice of his
daughter; (Jud. xi.) and Abraham’s attempt to sacri
fice his son. (Gen. xxii.) Of this last I must speak
more fully, because there are, holding high positions
both in the church and in popular estimation, as thinkers
and scholars, men who insist on drawing from it a moral
which they deem favourable to the character of the deity
as represented in the Jewish Scriptures. But at present
they have failed to do more than read back into the
Bible the civilisation of their age and their own personal
amiability. So far from their being justified in regard
ing the arrest of Abraham as a protest on the part of
the Deity against the prevailing custom of human sacri
fices, the narrative distinctly asserts that “ God tempted
Abraham ” to commit the horrid deed: that his consent
to commit it was accepted at the time as an “ act of faith,”
and rewarded by a renewal of the promise of a numerous
posterity; and not only is there in the Scriptures no
expression whatever commending him for refraining
from completing the sacrifice, but the New Testament
treats it approvingly as being as good as completed,
saying in one place, “ By faith Abraham, when he was
tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the
promises offered up his only-begotten son;” (Heb. xi. 17.)
and in another place, “Was not Abraham our father
justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son
upon the altar ? Seest thou how faith wrought with his
works, and by works faith was made perfect ?” (Jam. ii.
21, 22.)
�and Modern Education.
51
So far from the principle of human sacrifices, or the
belief in a deity who required to be propitiated by blood,
being repudiated in the New Testament, “the Continuity
of Scripture ” is in these respects plain and indisputable,
and the principle is carried to a height undreamt of in
Old Testament times. The God of the Jewish priests
requires at length the blood of his own “ only-begotten,”
“ beloved ” son ! It is only when this tremendous climax
has been reached that the dread thirst is appeased. This
is the fundamental argument of the eminently sacerdotal
epistle to the Hebrews, (of unknown authorship). In it
we are assured that “ without shedding of blood there is
no remission of sins.” (Heb. ix. 22.) A human parent, not
in this respect “ made in the image of God,” can forgive
a repenting errant child. The divine parent, made by
priests, and at once unhuman and inhuman, must have
his “pound of flesh” from somebody. This epistle tells
us concerning Christ that “ neither by the blood of goats
and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into
the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for
us............... So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of
many;” (ix. 12, 28.) thus adopting and justifying the
view of the high-priest Caiaphas, who, by virtue of his
sacerdotal office, counselled and I prophesied that Jesus
should die for the people;” (John xi. 50, 51.) — a
view shared even by John himself, who in one of his
epistles declares that “ God sent his only begotten Son
to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John iv. 9, 10.)
Thus early were the attempts of Jesus to abolish sacer
dotalism, and promulgate purer notions of the Deity,
defeated by his own disciples, or by those who wrote in
their names; and the reformation which constituted the
real Christianity, overlaid and stifled by “ the Church.”
I
�52
'Jewish Literature
Let the churches called Christian, demonstrate, if they
will, their “ Continuity ” with the most hideous of
Jewish superstitions ; and cherish the recollection of the
worst side of the Jewish Divinity, by perpetual repetitions
of the rite which, while declining to practice it simply
“ in remembrance ” of a loved and lost benefactor, they
yet profanely style “the holy Eucharist.” Say they, it
requires a miracle to keep the church up ? Well, perhaps
it does. But if we who “ have not so learned Christ ”
are to act consistently with our more advanced ideas of
religion and morality, the “notes and comments” by which
the reading of these passages in our schools is accom
panied, must direct attention rather to the higher and
better teaching of prophetical lips ; “ the sacrifices of
God are a contrite heart; ” (Ps. li. 17.) “ he saveth such
as be of a contrite spirit;” (xxxiv. 18.) and “ dwelleth
with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit;” (Is. lvii.
15.) as well as that of Jesus himself, “If a man love
me he will keep my words; and my Father will love
him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with
him.” (John xiv. 23.) There is no savour of blood here.
If an education is.to be imparted that is consistent
with “ the development of the intellect and mor^J sense,”
the doctrine that justice can be satisfied by the substitu
tion of the innocent for the guilty, must be rigidly ex
cluded from our schools. It is true that this doctrine is
not without a certain significance; that there is a way by
which the position of the wicked may be bettered through
the condemnation of the righteous. For the punishment
of the innocent involves the divine law of justice being,
not fulfilled, but so utterly shattered and destroyed, as to
be thenceforth absolutely non-existent. The sinner’s gain,
therefore, would consist in there being no law of justice
by which he could be arraigned.
�and Modern Education.
53
But so invincibly implacable is the deity of at least a
great portion of the New Testament, that even such stu
pendous atonement fails to gain him over. Its benefits
are confined to a fortunate few, and his fury towards the
rest is redoubled. As Burns says, he
“ Sends ane to heaven, and ten to hell
A’ for his glory.”
The penalties of evil-doing are infinitely enhanced, and
they are applied to a fresh class of offences. Here, too,
Continuity is combined with progression; but it is,
morally, a progression backwards. The Old Testament
consigns no one to eternal punishment, neither does it
make penal the conclusions of the intellect. The New
Testament abounds in menaces of the most fearful cha
racter, not only against malefactors, but also against un
believers. It represents the Almighty, when punishing
the reprobate, as uninfluenced by anything analogous to
the human motive of promoting the security of society or
the reformation of the criminal, but inflicting torture in
the spirit of a fiend, out of pure malignity, because with
no advantage to any. “ The unbelieving and the abomi
nable” are classed together, and, we read, “shall have their
part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone;”
(Rev. xxi. 8.) “where their worm dieth not, and the
fire is not quenched;” (Mark ix. 44.) “there shall be
weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt. viii. 12.) “Depart
ye cursed,” is the final doom of those who had failed to
recognise Christ on earth, “ depart ye cursed into ever
lasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Matt,
xxv. 41.)
Nay, more than this. The gospels, as we have them,
actually represent Jesus himself as pronouncing sentence
�. 54
J
’ ewish Literature
of damnation upon all who cannot work miracles. His
last words to his disciples are thus reported: “Go ye
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every crea
ture. . . He that helieveth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my
name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with
new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they
drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall
lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (Mark
xiv. 16.) Not to work miracles is not to believe, and
not to believe is to be damned. Is it not certain that if
the young are allowed to read the New Testament with
out explanation or correction by “note or comment,”
they will, as have millions of tender souls to their in
expressible terror and anguish, find the gospel of Jesus to
be to them but a gospel of damnation ?
Let us return to this world and the practical concerns
of life. In its manner of dealing with the crucial act of
life, marriage, and its treatment of the relations of the
sexes generally, the New Testament takes, in regard to
the Old, a great step backwards. A demonstration of its
vacillation and utter inadequacy to provide rules for the
conduct of civilised life on this most important of all
points connected with morals, will fitly conclude this
division of the subject. To the commendation of impotency uttered by Jesus, the stress laid by him upon mere
physical fidelity, (Matt. xix. 9, 12.) and his disregard of
all incongruity or incompatibility of character or affec
tion, as a plea for separation, (a peculiarity which we
have in our institutions but too faithfully followed), must
be added these sentences of Paul: “ Art thou bound to a
wife ? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a
wife 1 Seek not to be bound. . . It is better to marry
�and Modern Education.
55
than to burn,” and, “ good for the present distress.” (1 Cor.
vii. 27, 9, 29.) Hardly from this will our youth learn to
recognise love as capable of being a pure and an elevating
influence, or to give to Christianity the credit, so often
claimed for it, of having raised woman from the depressed
position in which that age found her. It will be in vain
that they read “Marriage is honourable in all,” (Heb.
xiii. 4.) when they find the prevailing spirit of the
gospel to be ascetic, exalting absolute chastity as one of
the loftiest of virtues, and denouncing all natural desire
as sinful in itself. (1 Cor. vii. 1, 38; Rev. xiv. 4.) Will
not the later teaching of Scripture appear to them to
have receded sadly in its fitness for humanity, from the
earlier which commanded men to “ increase and multi
ply;” (Gen. i. 28.) commended a virtuous woman as “a
crown to her husband;” (Prov. xii. 4.) and pronounced a
blessing on “children and the fruit of the womb;” (Ps.
cxxvii. 3, &c.) and, in so far as the relations of the
sexes are concerned, excite in them a preference for the
Jewish regime over the Christian 1
The number is beyond all reckoning, of women, the
best and noblest of their sex, the most fitted to be the
mothers and early trainers of mankind, who through a
superstitious regard to this characteristic of the New
Testament, have renounced their natural “ high calling,”
leaving to inferior types the fulfilment of the functions
upon the right exercise of which the progress, elevation,
and happiness of mankind depend ; who have withdrawn
themselves from the duties of real life into artificial
isolation, through a conscientious but mistaken belief,
that in practising the selfishness of the devotee, they are
seeking a virtue which is possible only through the exer
cise of the affections. It is in vain that Paul in his
�56
•
Jewish Literature
riper experience wrote, “ I will that the younger women
marry, bear children, guide the house,” (1 Tim. v. 14.)
when Churches persist in making so much of his earlier
utterance delivered, as he himself acknowledges, with
hesitation and doubt. “ The unmarried woman careth
for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both
in body and spirit: but she that is married careth for
the things of the world, how she may please her hus
band,” and . . . “ I think that I have the spirit of God,”
(1 Cor. vii. 34, 40.)—as if the best, the only way of serv
ing God was not by serving man. This is but an
expression and echo of that same Manichaean principle
of Asceticism, which has led alike Pagans and Christians
innumerable to despise the material world. Blasphem
ously divorcing the Creator from his work, it teaches
that nature is so utterly corrupt and wrong, that the
more we go against and mortify it, the more likely we
are to be pure and right.
‘ And so it comes that woman, while promoted theo
logically to be “Queen of Heaven” and “Mother of
God,” ecclesiastically is regarded as a mistake of nature,
a thing to be snubbed and repressed, and condemned to
the living death of an enforced celibacy.’
One whom I dare to call the greatest of our philo
sophers, Herbert Spencer, has epitomised in a single
sentence all that can be said on this subject:—“Morality
is essentially one with physical truth. It is a kind of
transcendental physiology.” (“ Social Statics.”) It is
.through ignorance of this, the real basis and nature of
morality, that myriads of the best women in Christendom
have, in every generation, to the incalculable loss of the
whole species, made the saddest shipwreck both of their
own lives and of the lives which by their sweet and holy
influence they might have rendered supremely blest.
�and Modern Education.
57
There is a “ Higher Law” of morality which impels
ns to suppress our own affections and desires, not through
hope of reward here or hereafter; not through deference
to conventional standards, hut solely through an un
selfish regard to the feelings of those to whom it is our
lot to be allied. But that such a law is to be the law of
our lives, and sole standard of virtue, we find no intima
tion in the Testament, Old or New.
XII.
Yet, notwithstanding the failure of the Bible to pro
vide an authoritative or satisfactory rule either of morals
or of religion, I hold that, both for its own intrinsic
merits, and for the place which it occupies in the litera
ture and history of ourselves and of mankind, it ought
not to be excluded from the educational course of our
children.
It was proposed in the London School-board to exclude
it on the ground that its use as a religious text-book
outside the schools, makes its admission into the schools
inconsistent with religious equality. It certainly would
be, as is generally allowed, an act of gross unfairness to
admit partisan theology into a common school. But,
happily, as is also very generally allowed, speculative
dogma and practical religion are very far indeed from
being one and the same thing; and even those who
object most strongly to dogma in itself, desire to see
children brought up religiously, that is with reverential
regard for divine truth and law.
If fairness and impartiality forbid the Bible to be in
troduced and used as the text-book of any party or sect,
they equally forbid it to be excluded for happening to be
�58
'Jewish Literature
such a text-book. For this would equally constitute
dogmatic teaching, though of a negative kind. Perfect
fairness requires that the question of the introduction
and use of a book within the schools, should not be in
any way dependent upon dogmatic opinions entertained
respecting it by parties outside the schools. Perfect
fairness forbids that anything which is good and instruc
tive in itself, be excluded merely on account of the source
from which it is derived; be it from Turk, Infidel, Heretic,
Pagan, Jew, or Christian. It is here that the limitation
imposed by our definition of education, comes to our aid,
“ The cultivation of the intelligence and moral sense” by
means of “ whatsoever things are true, pure, and honest;”
“ that fear God, and work righteousness;” and are “pro
fitable for doctrine (or teaching), for reproof, for correc
tion, for instruction in righteousness.”
Thus, in the common schools, nothing must be taught
as being the “ Word of God,” or as not being the “ Word
of God either assertion being equally dogmatic. But
everything must be allowed to derive its force from its
own intrinsic character. And. those who hold that the
children ought to be taught to regard the Bible as being,
or containing, exclusively the “ Word of God,” will only
betray their own want of faith if they express misgivings
lest that word fail to assert its own efficacy and speak its
own divine message to the soul, without special enforce
ment as such by the schoolmaster.
Perhaps, too, upon the idea being put before them,
they will even acquiesce in the suggestion, that for any
man, be he schoolmaster or priest, or any body of men,
lay or cleric, ancient or modern, even though dignified
by the title of “ General Council,” to take upon them
selves the responsibility of determining or declaring what
�and Modern Education.
59
is, or what is not, “ the Word of God,” is to lay them
selves open to the charge of the most stupendous pre
sumption of which finite being can possibly be guilty:
a presumption which is no other than that of declaring
themselves to be infallible, and entitled to sit in the
temple of God as if they were God. (2 Thess. ii. 4.)
And further, to declare that the Bible is or contains
exclusively “ the Word of God,” is to forbid the souls of
men to find a divine message elsewhere than in the
Bible. It is to dictate to God as well as to man. For
it is to forbid God to make of others “ ministers to do
his will.” (Ps. ciii. 21; Heb. i. 24.) It is to extract all
meaning from the saying of Jesus, “ Lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world.” (Matt, xxviii. 20.)
It is to reject that “ Spirit of truth” who was promised
to “guide us into all truth.” (John xvi. 13.) It is to
“ quench the Spirit that giveth life,” in “ the letter that
killeth.” (1 Thess. v. 1, 9; 2 Cor. iii. 6.) It is to insist
that the Almighty speak to men, like a clergyman of the
Establishment, only from a text in the Bible. Let us, if
we will, define as “ the Word of God” that which “feareth
him and worketh righteousness;” but let us not dog
matise as to what particular author or composition comes
under that category^ For “ the Word of God” can only
be the word or thought of which God makes use to im
press the heart of any. If we “ search the Scriptures,”
we find that neither by the writers of the Psalms, by the
prophets, nor by Jesus, scarcely, if ever, is the phrase
used to denote that which was already written, but only
the deeper impression then present in the mind of the
speaker or writer. If not used by God to impress the
heart, it is then not “ his word.” The same utterance
may be “ his word” on one occasion, and not on another.
�60
Jewish Literatur'e
Varying for each person, it is not always the same for
any person, inasmuch as that which impresses us in
one mood, does not necessarily affect us in another. A
“ word of God” cannot fail, any more than a “ law of
God” can be broken. Any definition of Deity that does
not exclude such a possibility, is an utterly inadequate
definition, and one dishonouring to God.
But in the matter of the education of the young, we
have to use our best judgment in apportioning the means
to the end we have in view. And therefore we must
put into their hands such reading only as is plainly
adapted for their edification, whether we take it from
the Bible or from any other book. It is for children to
to be in statu pupillari to men. It is for men to be in
statu pupillari to God.
I hold, then, that the Bible should be used in our com
mon schools, First, for its intrinsic merits. In its pages
we find the most complete revelation of humanity to be
found in any written book, showing the gradual growth
of the moral and spiritual faculties from the most rudi
mentary ages to the Christiaii era. We find this mainly
in the exhibition of the rise and development, however
irregular, of the idea of God, until, from a Being so
limited in his nature and operations as to be able to
sympathise and side with only a few individuals or a
particular race, partaking all the deficiencies of their own
gross, rude natures, bribed by gifts, appeased by sacri
fices, partial, cruel, jealous, capricious, the patron and in
stigator of blood-thirsty and fraudulent men and actions,
the resort and associate of “ lying spirits,” and sharing
his sovereignty with the devil, — he is at length pre
sented to us as “ the high and holy one that inhabiteth
eternity;” (Is. lviii. 15.) “ the righteous judge;” (Rev.
�and Modern Education.
61
xix. 11.) “creator of all things;” (Gen. i. 1, &c.)
“ Saviour of all men;” (1 Tim. iv. 10.) “ whose kingdom
ruleth over all.” (Ps. ciii. 19).
Here we find first recorded the existence of a sense of
responsibility for our actions to a law and a power which
are above us. “ Here human nature is drawn in all its
extent, from its lowest depths to its loftiest reach; for the
Bible is a gallery in which all the paintings are life-like,
but the subjects so varied, that none are too gross for
admission. Being a revelation of God according to the
characters and imaginations of the men in whose con
sciousness his idea was conceived, it is emphatically a
revelation of man, inasmuch as man’s ideal is the index
to his own character and degree of intelligence.
This, however, is no speciality of the Bible. It is the
characteristic of all art and literature which speaks out
the genuine deeper feelings of men’s hearts ; and in this
respect, as containing the truest art, the Bible ranks as
the highest classics.
In selecting from the world’s literature, reading lessons
inculcating “ the true, the* pure, and the lovely,” who
could have the heart to exclude the remarkable hymn of
the creation; the significant allegory of Eden; the charm
ing pastoral of Isaac and Rebekah in their first love; the
touching idyl of Joseph and his brethren and their aged
father; the wondrous romance of the Exodus; the story
of Moses, that king of men; the noble recitations of law
and legend in Deuteronomy; the interesting narratives of
Samson, Samuel, David, and Solomon; the simple tales
of Ruth and of Esther, so illustrative of the manners of
the ancient east; the sublime poetry of Job and the
Psalms; the shrewd wisdom of the Proverbs; the genial
cynicism of Ecclesiastes; the magnificent outpourings of
�62
Jewish Literature
Isaiah, denouncing the degradation and despair of his
countrymen, and encouraging them anew to hope and to
restoration through the moral regeneration of their
nature ? (Which of us even now could not point out
some nation that has sore need of an Isaiah ?) Then the
noble lesson of Jonah, wherein children are oftener
taught to see a tale of a cross-grained prophet, a whale,
and a gourd, than to recognise the poet’s protest against
the popular notion, shared by Jonah, that the Lord was
a mere district-god who could be avoided by change of
place, and to see the moral of the fable in the representa
tion of deity as everywhere present alike, even in the
depths of the sea.
And, added to these, the exquisite purity and simpli
city of the gospels, with their central figure of Jesus and
his enthusiastic life-devotion to the cause of man’s re
demption from sin and suffering, and deliverance from
the blighting effects of religious formalism, and the
crushing weight of sacerdotalism; producing from the
harmonious depths of his own great soul a sublime ideal
of God as a Father, and a rule of life for man most noble
in conception even when most impracticable of applica
tion. (Of all the characters of history, I know of none
who would have sympathised more intensely with the
object and the views I am seeking to advance, than the
Christ whom I find in the gospels. Of course to the or
thodox and the vested interests of his day, he was only a
sad blasphemer and dangerous revolutionist.) Then, the
varied and genuine humanity of the Epistles; and, no
tably, the magnificent monologue on charity, (in the thir
teenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians,)
wherein Paul, dropping his too favourite character of
Rabbinical lawyer and quibbling controversialist, soars to
�and Modern Education.
63
an altitude whither the churches have never yet been
able to follow him. And, lastly, the lofty rhapsody of
the Apocalypse, wherein fervid imagination, escaping
from the woes beneath which mankind was being crushed
by a Domitian and a Nero, took refuge in an ideal
“ state of God,” where all wrongs should be redressed,
all tears wiped away, the tormentors relegated to ever
lasting punishment, and sorrow and pain be no more for
their victims.
And not for its intrinsic merits only, but for its in
fluence’ on the hearts of mankind, should our children not
be strangers to the volume in which, to borrow words
from one of our most highly inspired writers, “book after
book,Law and truth and example, oracle and lovely hymn,
and choral song of ten thousand thousand, and accepted
prayers of saints and prophets, sent back as it were from
heaven, like doves to be let loose again with a new
freight of spiritual joys and griefs and necessities; where
the hungry have found food, the thirsty a living spring,
the feeble a staff, and the victorious warfarer songs of
welcome and strains of music: which for more than a
thousand years has gone hand in hand with civilisation,
. . often leading the way. . . a book which good
and holy men, thepest and wisest of mankind, the kingly
spirits of historyl enthroned in the hearts of mighty
nations, have borne witness to its influences, and declared
to be beyond compare the most perfect instrument, the
only adequate organ of humanity; the organ and instru
ment of all the gifts, powers, and tendencies, by which
the individual is privileged to rise above himself.”*
To exclude all knowledge of the Bible from our youth,
would be to make a greater gap in the education of a
* S.T. Coleridge’s “Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit.”
�64
Jewish Literature
Briton than to omit almost any calculable number of
other books, including the bulk of the world’s history.
Indeed it would be to exclude almost all history what
soever; not ancient history merely, with knowledge of
Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Rome in its decline and fall;
but the history of all Christendom itself, with that of the
Papacy and the Reformation, and the whole of our own
struggles for and against liberty | (for even we have not
always been consistently on the side of freedom:) almost
all of which struggles have been associated more or less
with the Bible; the rise and origin, too, of the United
States of America. All these in the past, together with
our own condition in the present and hopes in the future,
and the signification of the vast bulk of our literature,
would, without some knowledge of the book that has
filled a leading part in them all, be absolutely dark and
meaningless.
Besides, there is not so much wisdom and beauty in
the world that we can afford to throw any away. If we
exclude the Bible altogether as being a text-book of our
own religious sects, there is no plea upon which we can
admit the admirable teaching that is to be found in the
sacred books of the Hindoos and Chinese, the Mohamme
dans and Buddhists. Nay, to exclude the good parts of
any book merely because it happens to be the text-book
of a sect, is to put it in the power of any small knot of
persons to secure the exclusion of any book whatsoever,
by claiming it as one of their sacred books. Fancy a sect
of Shakespeare worshippers getting by such means all
knowledge of Shakespeare excluded from our educational
course ! Or a new sect of Pythagoreans to revive the
worship of numbers, and, setting up Colenso as their highpriest, forcing us to exclude arithmetic from our schools !
�and Modern Education.
65
Indeed, if only because of the very power and popular
ity of the Bible, it should not be left to be dealt with
exclusively by a class of interpreters who acknowledge
other allegiance than to the developed intellect and con
science of men. But, containing as it does, the whole
sacred literature of the most remarkable of all ancient
peoples, the Jews, and that of their most remarkable
sect of religious reformers, the Christians, who, together,
more than any other people, have influenced the develop
ment of the human mind and the course of human his
tory; to exclude all knowledge of it from our youth
would be to keep back from them the master-key to the
heart and facts of humanity.
XIII.
But the fact of the Bible being, not a single book, but
a whole literature ranging over many centuries, greatly
simplifies the question of dealing with it. We rarely use
the whole of any book in the schoolroom; never an entire
literature. Imagine the whole, or samples of the whole, of
our own literature being put at once into the hands of a
child, with its rude early legends and ballads, its laws and
statutes, its medicine and science, its trials and police
reports, and all the revolting details which even the least
respectable of our newspapers suppress as “ unfit for pub
lication !” Yet this is what we have done with the
ancient literature of the Jews. Instead of exercising any
discrimination, we crowd our houses with it, we read it
aloud to our families, we put it entire into the hands of
■our children; and when we find impurity and supersti
tion rife among us, instead of admitting that we have
■done our best to promote them, we postulate the horrible
E
�66
J
’ ewish Literature
doctrines of “ original sin ” and “ total depravity,” and
shift the responsibility from our own shoulders to those
of “the devil!” It was remarked once by a well-known
Frenchman that “the English tolerate no indecencies
except in their Bibles.” Fatal exception, when we print
Bibles in millions, in all the languages of the earth, and
thrust them into the hands of every babe and suckling
and growing youth.
The remedy which I propose is twofold : First, that a
new version, omitting the whole of the parts which are
objectionable on the score of decency, omitting also the
headings by which ecclesiastical editors have sought to
palliate immorality or strain the meaning to the support
of particular doctrines, be made to take the place of the
existing “ authorised versionand that this be done
so completely that the old version be no longer accessible
to the young, but continue to exist only as a curiosity
or book of reference upon the shelves of students.
This change is one which, while it might be'initiated
by the School-boards undertaking to produce such a
version for the use of their schools, would require both
general and individual action on the part of the people
themselves. It will be aided by the wise resolve of the
Bible-revision Committee to omit the headings from their
new and improved version. If the powers of this Com
mittee were extended so as to enable it to make these
changes, a great step towards carrying out this part of
my proposed remedy would be gained. To further it
would be an admirable occupation for a society which
has existed for years among us under the presidency of
Lord Shaftesbury, calling itself “ The Pure Literature
Society.” Strange to say that, with all its zeal for
purity in literature, it has never yet tried its hand on
�and Modern Education.
6y
the Bible. It will indeed prove itself worthy of its high
title and calling, when it joins in the chase of the
“ authorised version ” from our homes, and the pews of
our churches, so that children shall no longer be tempted
to beguile the tedium of a sermon by feeding their
curiosity on its improprieties.
It is related of Goethe that he was present at a meeting
of the Dutch clergy, when it was proposed to establish
a censorship to enforce the expurgation of any improper
books which might be brought forward for publication!
Goethe at once expressed his admiration of the plan, and
recommended that they commence with the Bible.
Whereupon the king of Holland said to him, “ My dear
Goethe, pray hold your tongue. Of course you are quite
right: but it won’t do to say so.”
This, however, is not enough. There are, as we have
seen, very many portions of the Bible which, while not
totally “ unfit for publication,” are yet shocking, to the
intellect and moral sense if accepted literally as true,
inasmuch as they are libellous to the Deity. I propose,
therefore, Secondly, that teachers be required, alike by
School-boards and by parents, whenever such portions
of Scripture are read,—(and they ought to be read, if
only to show the advance we have made)—to make their
pupils clearly understand that they represent only the
imperfect notions of a barbarous age and people. ' That
just as the Greeks had their supreme ruling divinity in
Zeus, their divinity of song in Apollo, of war in Ares, of
gain in Hermes, of storms in JEolus, of wisdom in Pallas,
and of love in Aphrodite; so the Jews, instead of dis
tributing these functions among a number of distinct
divinities, ascribed them all in turn, no matter how
�68
'Jewish Literature
incongruously, as occasion required, to their own Jehovah.
By turn he is a “ man of war,” he is “love,” he is “fire,”
he “ rides on the wings of the wind,” and so on.
We cannot even accord to the Jews the credit, often
claimed for them, of being, in a world of polytheists, the
only pure monotheists. It is true that their institutions
forbade the worship of more than one God.; but they
recognised the existence of many gods. They were
monotheists in worship, but not in faith. Their Jehovah
was a far too unsociable, exclusive, “jealous” God, to
share their homage with others. He thus was made
strictly in the image of the Jews themselves, the most
exclusive of human races. That Baal and Chemosh,
Ashtoreth and Molech, were all realities for them, is
shown in frequent utterances ascribed even to Jehovah
himself. And Solomon, though “ the wisest of men,”
established their worship in Jerusalem. The Bible
shows, tod, by numerous instances, that the Jews were
by no means satisfied with their own deity. The minds
of their loftiest poets, indeed, occasionally, in their
loftiest moods, rose to the conception of a deity, one and
universal; but they did this in common only with the
loftiest minds of all peoples, ages, and religions; those
minds whose opinions have ever been regarded by the
conventional and superstitious as atheistic and blasphem
ous, whether it be Socrates, Spinoza, Shelley, or Jesus.
But even if the Jews acknowledged but one God, they
called him by various names ; and it would be an addi
tional safeguard against superstition if, in the new
version, those names were preserved. In translating
the Latin and Greek writers we never think of substitu
ting God for Jupiter or Apollo. There is no valid
reason for dealing differently with Jehovah, Elohim,
Adonai, Shaddai.
�and Modern Education.
69
This, then, is the whole conclusion :—
(1.) That the Bible should be admitted into the
schools; but it must be a purified, an expurgated Bible;
and (2.) That its reading must be accompanied by such
“ notes and comments ” as will make it really conducive
to the development of the Intelligence and Moral Sense
of the scholars.
But to minister to these ends, it must be read with no
adventitious solemnity that might specialise it as a
superior authority, and invest it with a preter-educational
character. For this would at once be to remove it from
the category of legitimate educational uses, by exempting
it from the operation of the normal digestive apparatus
of the intellect. In short, to make the Bible useful for
education, it must be taught comparatively. And as this
implies the possession of a certain amount of related
knowledge, it is clear that there is but very little of it
that is suited to the very young or very ignorant.
XIV.
Now for the general principle on which these u notes
and comments ” should be based.
It is universally acknowledged that the human mind
is endowed with a tendency to imagine the Deity as pos
sessed in perfection of all the qualities which are recog
nised by itself as best. The strength of this tendency is
ever in inverse proportion to the degree of the mind’s
development, being greatest in the most rudimentary
stage of intelligence.
Investing the Deity with the attributes of personality,
the finite mind cannot do otherwise than make God in
its own image. The character of that image is the mea
�70
Jewish Literature
sure of our own moral and spiritual capacity. For, when
by God we mean the ideal of our own imagination, it
follows that the character of our God indicates the de
gree of our own development. Later on, when the mind
attains a certain advanced stage of intellectual progress,
we find our conception of Deity so transcendently en
larged, that no definition satisfies us, save one which re
cognises Him as the sum of all the forces, physical, moral,
and spiritual, at work in the universe; the divine work,
which we call Nature, being the sum of all phenomena.
God the sum of causes, Nature the sum of effects. This
is no dogma. It is only a definition of what we mean
by God, what by nature.
For the purposes of early education, however, we have
to deal with God in a moral aspect, as the Ideal of
Humanity j the perfection towards which it is our high
est function to strive. Wherefore, nothing can be more
fatal to our moral progress than to have that ideal de
graded to a low type of character. If we are to call him
“ Fool,” who, denying cause and effect, says, “ there is
no God,” (Ps. xiv. 1.) what are we to say of him who
teaches that God is evil ? What, again, are we to call
those who, holding that God is absolutely good, and that
a firm belief in that goodness is requisite to enable man
to be good also, and who, moreover, desire to cultivate
goodness in their children, yet hesitate not to put into
the hands of those children narratives of impurity,
cruelty, and deceit, and tell them that the perpetrators
and their deeds were acceptable to, and indeed prompted
by, the Deity ? If the purpose of right education be to
develop the moral sense, what sort of education is this ?
If another- purpose be to develop the intellect, how is this
end to be served, when the only way of escape that such
�and Modern Education.
teachers have, on being questioned by their perplexed
pupils, lies in declaring it to be a “ mystery,” and so
closing the doors of their intelligence the moment it
begins to expand ? .
Keeping in mind the remarks I have made respecting
the inevitable anthropomorphism of all imperfectly de
veloped minds, you will perceive that it involves no
reproach to the Jews that, in those early stages of human
progress, they partook of the universal tendency, and
constructed their God in their own image; that they
credited him with the qualities, moral and immoral,
which they found in themselves; and, in their total
ignorance of natural law and phenomena, were more ready
to seek the divine hand in departures from the regular
order of nature, than to recognise it in its establishment
and maintenance. It is thus that all early literatures
necessarily contain prodigies and fables illustrative of the
imperfect notions of their period. And so far from these
things being true because they are in the Bible, or a re
proach to the Jews in being untrue, the miracle really
would have been if there were no miracles, no anthro
pomorphism, in the Scriptures. In this sense, therefore,
it may be said that the truth of the Bible is proved by
the untruths of the Bible.
Even if we give the Jews credit as having done their
best for the honour of their god in thus constructing him
in their own image, we assuredly cannot lay claim to
similar credit for ourselves. For we have fallen infinitely
below our own best, in the character we have assigned
to our God. Think for a moment how marvellous is the
anomaly we present. For six days of the week we avail
ourselves freely of the wondrous results of the most ad
vanced science and culture, philosophy and thought, of
�72
Jewish Literature
this nineteenth century after Christ, in which the labours
of all former centuries have culminated, and we do this for
our own advantage and enjoyment; and on the seventh
day, when the honour of our God is concerned, we are con
tent to jump back to the nineteenth century before Christ,
and borrow for him both character and lineaments from
a semi-barbarous Syrian tribe, whose whole literature
proves their absolute incapacity to comprehend the
simplest of his works in nature. And in their image,
fitful and vengeful, we make our God, refusing him the
benefits of the light we have gained. A wondrous feat
of moral and intellectual athletics is this our weekly
jump backward and then-forward again.
The resolution finally passed by the London Board
provides that “ the Bible shall be read, and there shall
be given therefrom such instruction in the principles of
religion and morality, as is suitable to the capacities of
children, no attempt being made to attach the children
to any particular denomination.”
Thus, the Bible is to be read “ with notes and com
ments.” If, however, these notes and comments are not
to be of the kind I have just described, the Resolution
means absolutely nothing. If the teachers are not to
explain that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Samuel, David,
and Solomon, were, in respect of the acts which have been
enumerated, exceedingly bad men, and that the deity
who is said in the Bible to have approved of them, was
but the imaginary local divinity of the Hebrews as re
presented by their priests, the Resolution is nothing but
an illusion and a blind. If the teacher is not to say that
Abraham was wrong to follow his impulse to sacrifice
his son; Jacob wrong to cheat his nearest and dearest
relations ; Samuel wrong to revoke his sovereign’s pledge
�and Modern Education.
73
of clemency, and rebelliously to set up a rival to him;
David wrong to sacrifice the sons of Saul, and to order
the execution of the man he had sworn to spare; if
he is not to say that Jesus and the apostles were mis
taken in expecting the early end of the world rand
re-appearance of Christ; that the story of his birth
is a piece of mere paganism, and that many of the
injunctions in the New Testament are not fitting rules
for civilised life—the Resolution is utterly devoid
of meaning. I am not saying that it may not be per
fectly sound theology to praise Abraham and Jacob for
these things, and represent the deity as approving of
them, but only that it is neither good religion nor good
morality; and it is not theology, but religion and mor
ality, which, both by the Education Act and the Resolu
tion, the teacher is bound to inculcate. Even if it be
true that morality is based upon religion, the religion
containing such theology can certainly not claim to be in
any way connected with morality. And to teach it will
be to go directly in the face of the Resolution which
provides “ that instruction be given from the Bible in
the principles,” not of theology, but “of religion and
morality.” Wherefore, when a question arises in the
schools, such as that of the propriety of Abraham’s com
pliance, of Jael’s treachery, or of Caiaphas’s counsel to
offer up Jesus in human sacrifice as an atonement for the
people;—the teacher acting in accordance with our
definition and the Board’s Resolution, will have no
choice but to reply, “ The justification of these actions
belongs to the domain of theology. Morality unequivo
cally condemns them. And my duty here is to teach
you morality.”
And this, I think, settles the question which has been
�74
"Jewish Literature
raised since the passing of the Resolution, namely, the
question, Who is to give Biblical or religious instruction
in the schools, whether the ordinary teachers who are
responsible to the Board, or the clergy or other persons
specially appointed for that ^purpose by the various reli
gious bodies themselves ? The resolution declares that
the children are to be taught, not theology, but Religion
and Morality. To admit, therefore, independent teachers
of theology, would be, in so far as such theology is in
conflict with religion and morality, to admit teachers of
irreligion and immorality, and would thus neutralise the
Resolution of the Board, and the whole object of educa
tion, which, as cannot be repeated too often at this time,
consists in the development of the intellect and moral
sense.
Probably nothing could be put before the young more
pernicious than the teaching of the official theologian.
It was but the other day that a clergyman of the English
Establishment preached a sermon to the effect that Jacob
was quite right to cheat his father and brother because
he knew that he should make a better use of the property
than they would. No, however sound the theology of such
teaching may be, and this is no rare or extreme instance,
it certainly is not the teaching by which either the
intelligence or the moral sense of children is likely to be
developed.
XV.
So far from the simple and natural explanation which
I have given of the incongruities and contradictions con
tained in the Bible, having been diligently promulgated
by those who have’ undertaken to be its interpreters, our
spiritual teachers have, on the contrary, during some
�and Modern Education.
75
three hundred years done their best to erect the Bible
into an jinfallible standard, not merely of theology, but
of religion and morality. Outvying the apostle who, in
the excess of his zeal, cut off one ear, they have done
their best to stop up both ears against the voice of reason
and conscience. They forget that Jesus restored the in
jured organ.
It is true that an excuse for the existence of the popular
theory, and for the tenacity with which it has held its
ground, is not far to seek. It was natural that we should
feel a high degree of gratitude towards the book which
materially aided us in emancipating ourselves from the
yoke of mediaeval Papalism, and asserting our own indi
viduality among the community of the nations. It was
natural that our enthusiasm for the agent of our deliver
ance should lead us to place it high, even too high, in our
regards. And so it came that we replaced an infallible,
but discomfited, Pope by an infallible book; not per
ceiving that, if indeed it was a credit to the Bible to
have made us free, we do the reverse of honour to it by
allowing it to tyrannise over us in turn.
Again, in addition to being a grateful, we are an emi
nently prudent, folk. We prefer to be on with a new *
love before we are quit of the old. Hating anything
like an interregnum, we cry, “ The king is dead. Long
live the king,” without the interval of a moment. And
so we continue to cling to the old accustomed dwelling,
letting it crumble into ruin around us, rather than endure
a brief season of discomfort while waiting for the rear
ing of a new habitation on its site. “ If we give up the
Bible as an infallible guide,” it is asked, “ to what are
we to look in its place 1 ”
Having at present to deal with facts, and not with
fancies, there is no need to enlarge on the popular dogma
�76
Jewish Literature
further than to say that, not being contained in the Bible
itself, but being unknown alike to the Fathers of the
primitive Church, to the Reformers of the sixteenth cen
tury, and to the articles and formularies of both the
Romish Church and the English, it must have its basis
in modern innovation rather than in ancient authority.
I ascribe, then, the popular theory respecting the
Bible in some degree to the causes I have named, but
mainly to that instinctive monarchical tendency which
leads the uneducated to distrust their own intelligence
and moral sense, and require some palpable ruler and
guide. “ In their ignorance of the experimental cha
racter of human nature, men will seek infallibility some
where ; in an oracle, a priest, a church, or a book.” This
tendency has been, as a rule, sedulously fostered by
governments and teachers. Once deprived of their
Fetich, and roused from indolent acquiescence in its
supposed commands, they cry out that their gods have
been stolen from them, and fancy that the universe
will collapse, because they are now forced to fulfil their
proper vocation, and use their own faculties.
It was in virtue of this characteristic that the Swiss
theologians of the seventeenth century maintained the
inspiration • of the comparatively recent vowel-points of
the Hebrew text: that the early Christians ascribed a
supernatural origin to the Septuagint; and the Council of
Trent gave an authority superior to that of the original
texts to the Vulgate, which attained such a height of
superstitious respect that, according to Erasmus, some
monks, on seeing it printed in parallel columns between
the Greek and the Hebrew, likened it to Christ crucified
between the two thieves. (Colloquies.) And it was even
seriously proposed by the theological faculty of Mayence,
�'’-ft
^■r,'‘'7?-,?>,''z
and Modern Education.
▼
77
in the 15th century, to make a total “ revision and cor
rection of the Hebrew Bible, inasmuch as it differed
from the authorised Latin translation ! ”
Perhaps the most singular fact in connection with the
popular doctrine is, that to doubt its accuracy has come
to be treated as a piece of heinous moral depravity, and
this even by some who ought to know better. When
the eminent author of the “Christian Year” was con
sulted respecting a difficulty in the way of receiving it,
felt by Dr Arnold, then a student, Keble’s advice was
“ work it down 1 Throw yourself wholly into your
parish or your school, and work it down! ” * This
simply meant, “ ignore itas if faith consisted in the
suppression of doubt, and conscientious scruples were
demons to be exorcised.
Later in life, when pressed on the same point by Sir
John Coleridge, who urged the subject on him as one
that he was competent to deal with, adding that it pro
mised shortly to become the great religious question of
the time, Mr Keble, after endeavouring to evade an
swering, replied shortly that “most of the men who had
difficulties on this subject were too wicked to be reasoned
with.”t Such was the answer of one of the most vene
rated of modern Sacerdotalists to a near relative. of the
great Coleridge, who (in the book I have already quoted)
had pronounced the popular doctrine to be “ superstitious
and unscriptural.”
“ Ignore a conscientous scruple, or you are too wicked
to be reasoned with I” Respect a dogma because it is a
dogma, no matter how the reason and the conscience, nay,
the Almighty himself, be outraged thereby! Submit
humbly to authority, no matter how immoral its require* Stanley’s Life of Arnold.
f Coleridge’s Memoirs of Keble.
�78
"Jewish Literature
ments! Ignore your scruples, and instead of manfully
“facing your doubts” and “beating your music out,” let
your doubt remain, an unresolved discord, to jar ever
more within your soul! To such straits are they driven
who remain in bondage to “ the weak and beggarly ele
ments” of the popular orthodoxy. Surely it is time for
us to say positively that we will not commit the minds
and consciences of our children to teachers who will bring
them up to regard sincerity as a vice, and crush at once
both intellect and moral sense by superstition, popular or
ecclesiastical.
XVI.
But though our immediate teachers in nursery, school
and pulpit, have laboured assiduously to inculcate this
dogma, it may safely be affirmed that, in addition to the
vast range of authorities already named who reject it,
there is not at this day a single scholar, (I do not say
“learned divine,” but scholar of acknowledged critical
ability,) lay or cleric, orthodox or heretic, in Christendom,
who holds it for himself. One and all, they recognise the
existence in the Bible of, at the very least, a largely per
vading. element of human imperfection. It is true that
Dr Hook in his “ Church Dictionary” defines “ Inspira
tion” as being “the extraordinary or supernatural in
fluence of the Spirit of God on the human mind, by
which the prophets and sacred writers were qualified to
receive and set forth divine communications without any
mixture of error,” and asserts upon his own sole autho
rity that in this sense the term occurs in the passage,
“ all scripture (is) given by inspiration of God.” (2 Tim.
iii. 16.) It is true that in this he is followed by Dr
�and Modern Education.
79
Wordsworth and other prominent churchmen. But no
critical scholar ventures to affirm that “ Inspiration ” is
identical with, or implies, “ Infallibility.” On the con
trary, their profoundest investigations only serve to de
monstrate the truth of the conclusion patent to common
sense, that humanity is so constructed as to be incapable
of infallibility in the absence of means of verification;
and that the being prompted by a “ holy spirit,” or dis
position, by no means guarantees a man against error,
however wide his spiritual range, or deep his spiritual
insight.
But farther, even if the original text could be regarded
as infallible, there is the. fact that we do not possess that
original text, and that the documents which claim to be
derived from it, have passed through the hands of many
copyists, each more or less accurate, more or less honest.
And were the text certainly perfect as it is certainly most
defective, there are still the difficulties of translation, diffi
culties which are, as every scholar knows, often absolutely
insurmountable. For the language of different nations
varies with their ideas, and their ideas vary with their
institutions, associations, and habits; so that different
languages frequently have no terms whatever in which to
express the ideas contained in other languages. Many
tropical tribes, for instance, have no words to express
such things as ice and snow, because those things are alto
gether unknown to them. A translation, therefore, of
the Bible into their language is, so far as ice and snow
are concerned, impossible. “ In the islands of the South
Seas there were no quadrupeds Until the first navigators
took some pigs there, when the name given by the natives
to the pigs, became the generic term for all four-legged
animals. The horse was the big pig that runs over the
�8o
J
‘ ewish Literature
ground. The cow was the great milky pig. The sheep
the curly pig. We may imagine the feelings with which
the pious translators of the Bible for the islanders found
themselves compelled to use a corresponding designation
for the phrase “Lamb of God.” The Zulus of South
Africa had no idea of God or a future state, and prized
above all things flesh in an advanced stage of decomposi
tion. Wherefore the missionaries in translating the Bible
for them, and rendering the supreme good in their lan
guage, were obliged to identify God and heaven with
rotten meat.
The same lack of corresponding terms exists more or
less between all languages, as is shown by the fact that
words and phrases are often transported whole from one
language into another. Moreover, words used to express
actions, principles, or qualities, in one language, often be
come concreted into persons and things by the genius of
another. And in all languages, or nearly all, the same
word frequently has many different significations. (As
in English the words Jac,
&c., have each half-a-dozen
meanings.) It sometimes happens, therefore, that a trans
lator has to be guided by what he is led by the context
or some other criterion to think the passage is likely to
mean.
Thus, in the passage, “ Whosoever will save his life
shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake
shall find it. For what is a man profited if he shall gain
the whole world, and lose his own soul ? or what shall a
man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt. xvi. 25, 26.)
—the word rendered soul is precisely the same, article
and all, with the word rendered life.
Again, for the word spirit, which is used by us in nearly
a score of different senses, personal and impersonal, the
�and Modern Education.
Greek equivalent, pneumo,, generally, if not always, signi
fies the air, breath, or life. In the well-known passage
in John, (iii. 8.) “ The wind bloweth where it listeth, and
thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence
it cometh and whither it goeth; so is every one that is
born of the spirit,”—the word rendered wind, and the
word spirit, are identical, article and all, with each other.
Yet the translators have given to the same word, occur
ring in the same sentence, two entirely different mean
ings. And, as if to justify this, the modern printers of
the. Greek text sometimes give a capital initial to the
word which is translated spirit; thus in a measure, alter
ing the text to suit the authorised version.
Such was the imperfection of the ancient Hebrew for
the purposes of expression in writing, that it was not
until long after the Bible had been written that the dis
tinction between the tenses of past and future was pro
perly developed. It was in their confusion between these
tenses that our translators, in the magnificent ode of
Isaiah beginning, “ Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people,”
produced the absurd and impious phrase, “ She hath re
ceived at the Lord’s hand double for all her sins,” in
stead of the joyous assurance, “ She shall receive . . .
double for all her sufferings.” (xl. 2.) It is easy to im
agine the difficulty attending prophetic expression in a
language which had no distinct future tense !
A very little reflection on the modus operandi of what
theologically is called “ Inspiration,” will at once exhibit
to us the fallacy of the popular notion. It can only con
sist of an impulse or impression on the mind, so strong
as to make the individual receiving it, ascribe it to a
preternatural source. But, however irresistible for him,
the authority and character of the impression must still
F
�82
'Jewish Literature
be determined, not by its strength in relation to his
mind, but by its own intrinsic nature. A bad impres
sion cannot proceed from a healthy source; neither does
a strong impression imply accuracy of doctrine. It is
under an irresistible impulse that the maniac mother
flings her child down a well. It is under an impression
so strong as to be for him an inspiration or divine reve
lation that the celibate takes his unnatural vow, the
devotee starves himself into bad health, the Russian
fanatic mutilates his body, and the Revivalist goes into
convulsions of madness. Thus, whatever is claimed to
be a divine revelation, must be referred ultimately to the
test of the Intellect and Moral Sense, as the sole canon
of criticism. Even the common notion that infallibility
may be attested by the power to work miracles, must be
disclaimed in presence of the instances ascribed in
Scripture to magical or diabolical agency.
“ Wherefore, although a man may have an overwhelm
ing sense that something claiming to be God has spoken
to him, it is clear, that unless he has a prior, personal and
infallible knowledge of God,—a knowledge prior, that is,
to his ‘ inspiration,’—he knows not but that it may be
a demon assuming the garb of light, perhaps even one of
those ‘ lying spirits’ who are represented in the Bible as
infesting even heaven itself, or a fantastic creation of his
own excited fancy. It behoves him, therefore, still to
judge the communication in his calmer moments by its
own intrinsic character, and to deliberate upon the actions
to which it impels him.” The wider the range we learn
to assign to Nature and the human faculties, the less be
comes our necessity for seeking a preternatural origin for
our ideas and impulses, and the more honour we pay to
the divine worker and his work.
�and Modern Education.
83
The prevalent readiness to distrust our own ability to
.perceive the higher moral facts of the universe, and our
consequent liability to refer all revelation to the con
sciousness of men who lived ages ago, is, no doubt, attri
butable partly to our possession of so many ancient books
which claim our attention, and draw our minds away
from the contemplation of the direct action of the uni
verse upon our own individual consciousness; and partly
to the repressing influence of those sacerdotal interests
which naturally repose upon traditional authority rather
than upon living insight and reason.
The habit is one to be firmly checked if we would
avoid the practical Atheism of banishing G-od and Truth
from the living present to the dead past. “ The creed or
belief of any age is, at best, but the index to the height
■of the divine presence of Truth in that ago.” To adopt
its limitations as our own, is to turn a deaf ear to the
voice of that “ Spirit of Truth” or Truthfulness, of whom
it was said by one who himself drew all his inspiration from
within, that “ when he is come he will guide you into all
truth.” (John xvi. 13.) It is but a limited sway that this
Spirit of Truthfulness has as yet obtained. Wherefore
the effect of all dogmas,—whether formulated in creeds,
■catechisms, or articles of faith,—and their maintenance by
oaths and emoluments, independently of intrinsic pro
bability or any possibility of verification, is to arrest
the natural development of Humanity and to disturb and
retard the whole process of the evolution of the species,
in regard to its highest functions. It is to give the
world a base money-bribe to retain in its maturity the
form, the garb, the dimensions, the ^maturity of its
childhood. Hear a recent utterance of one who, with
whatever drawbacks, seeks still to combine the prophet
�84
Jewish Literature
and the poet, and thus, with “ Songs before Sunrise,’^ •
heralds the dawn of better times:
A creed is a rod,
And weapon of night:
But this thing is God,
To be man with thy might,
To grow straight in the strength of thy spirit,
And live out thy life as the light. *
The very word Inspiration, in its primary meaning,
relates to the atmosphere. It is an ancient supposition
that ideas are inhaled with the breath. A man found
himself possessed of an idea or thought which the
moment before he had not. Whence could it have
come, if not in-breathed, or inspired, with the air 1 It
was Pythagoras who conceived the idea that the vital
process of the world is a process of breathing, the
infinite breath or atmosphere of the Universe being the
source of all life. An imaginative Oriental people
readily, in their expressions, personified such supposed
source of life and thought. We matter-of-fact Westerns
go on to make such personification absolute and dog
matic. Pn&uma, the air, becomes a personal spirit, or
assemblage of spirits, and divinely “ inspires ” us: as in
the old days of philosophy in Persia, under the influence
of which, during, or after the Babylonish captivity,
many of the Jewish sacred books evidently were com
posed,—’the breath, or Div, formed a linguistic basis for
a personal Devil,j
Ideas in the air !
Those who know what it is to
* Swinburne, very slightly altered.
t Cons. Donaldson’s “ Christian OrthodoxyArt. “Interme
diate Intelligences.”
�and Modern Education.
85
-crouch in the unhealthy confinement of close study, ever,
as the Poet says,
“ With blinded eyesight poring over miserable books,”
till heart and head become heavy and dull; and then to
betake themselves to seaside or mountain, where the
fresh winds of heaven blow freely upon them, inflating
their lungs, aerating their blood, and “sweeping the
cobwebs from their brains,” until the renovated organism
becomes re-charged with creative energy, and ideas
begin anew to spring up in the mind, revealing to it
“ Tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,
Sermons in stones, and good in everything, ”
—such as these can well appreciate the charming old
fancy that peopled the air with ideas, and regarded
every new thought as a separate spirit. It is only under
theologic manipulation that such gentle poetry becomes
steam-hammered into hard dogma, that existence is rob
bed of its charm, and millions of mankind are doomed
to pass through life, and to leave it, without ever having
been allowed to know how good the world really is.
But above and beside the questions of Inspiration, of
Language, of Transcription, and Translation, there is
the question of Interpretation. And, supposing all other
difficulties surmounted, we are here met by an impass
ible barrier. For the proposition is nothing less than
axiomatic, that “ an infallible revelation requires an
infallible interpreter : and that both are useless without
an infallible understanding wherewith to comprehend
the interpretation.”
By such demonstration of the utter impossibility of
infallibility, (in the theologic sense,) the ground is
entirely cut away from beneath, not only all past, but all
�86
'Jewish Literature
• future superstitions. For, by. annihilating “ authority,
it compels us to refer everything whatsoever to the
criterion of the intellect and moral sense of man. There
is now, therefore, no longer any space for " dogma.”
XVII.
To the list of authorities already given, I propose to
add a few representative names from the various schools
of theologic thought within the Established Church.
The first is that of the Bev. Dr Irons, who, in his
remarkable little volume, “ The Bible and its Inter
preters,” declares that “ any reasonable being who
would accept the Scriptures at all, must take them on
some other ground than that which identifies the written
Word with God’s Eevelation. A more hopeless, carnal,
and, eventually sceptical position, it is impossible to
conceive.” (p. 39.) Dr Irons, in this, follows the learned
Bishop of St David’s, Dr Thirlwall, whose recent noble
protest against the dishonesty of sacerdotal bigotry in
high places, in relation to the work of Biblical revision,
may well raise our respect for him to veneration, as one
who, in spite of his position, has dared practically to
point the distinction between Morality and the prevalent
Theology. In one of his Episcopal charges, Dr Thirlwall
points out the fact that “ Among the numerous passages
of the New Testament in which the phrase The Word
of God,” occurs, there is not one in which it signifies the
Bible, or in which that word could be substituted for it
without manifest absurdity.
It is notorious that the popular imagination is wont
to regard the same phrase, when used in the Psalms, as re
ferring, if not to the whole of the Old and New Testaments,
at least to the books ascribed to Moses and Samuel. .
�and Modern Education.
87
The late Dean of Canterbury, Dr. Alford, in his
“New Testament for English readers,” (p. 3.) says,
“Each man reported and each man selected according
to his own personal characteristics of thought and
feeling.”
Yet one other name, that of Bishop Colenso, whose
critical analysis of the Hebrew text is allowed by
scholars to constitute one of the most remarkable monu
ments of patient labour and sober judgment to be
found in literature. These scholars, approaching the
subject from opposite directions, agree in their main
conclusions. Their immediate motives, however, differ
considerably. The object of Dr. Irons is to force us
back, in the search for Infallibility, to rely altogether
upon “the Church.” “Hearthe Church,” is his maxim.
(Matt, xviii. 17.) But which Church ? we must ask,
and ask in vain. What saith the Church of England
in her articles? “As the Churches of Jerusalem,
Antioch, and Alexandria, have erred, so also hath the
Church of Rome erred.” (Art. xix.) Moreover, “General
Councils.............sometimes have erred.” (xxi.) (It was
a general Council that determined what books should
form the canon of Scripture, and what should be
rejected.) Can we wonder if the other Churches rejoin,
as at least one of them has done, with anathemas,
“ So also hath the Church of England erred ?”
The object of Dean Alford was to mediate between
the two extremes of popular orthodoxy and the results
of critical knowledge.
That of Bishop Colenso is simply to find out and state
what is the fact, believing that such purpose alone is
consistent with the deference due to the intellect and
moral sense of man, to truth, and to God Himself. In
�88
-
'Jewish Literature
one of his “ Natal Sermons,” he sums up the results of
his labours by describing the Bible as containing the
“Early attempts at History,” the writers of which
record, with «the simplicity of childhood, the first ima
ginings of thoughtful men about the Earth’s formation
and history, and mingle with traditionary lore and
actual fact, the legends and mythical stories of a hoar
antiquity, yet tell us how men were “ moved by the
Holy Ghost,” in those days, how they were “feeling
after God,” and finding Him, how the light shone
clearer and clearer upon their minds, as the day-star
of Eternal truth rose higher and higher upon them. . . .
A human book, in short, though a book full of divine
life.............written, as Paul says, for our learning, but
not all infallibly true.” (i. p. 62, &c.) •
But Dr. Irons and Bishop Colenso, while differing
apparently so widely in their motives, yet have in reality .
the same object. The Bishop would force us back
directly upon the Intellect and the Moral Sense. And
Dr Irons would force us back upon them through the
intermedium of “ the Church,” whatever that may be.
For we need not entertain the uncharitable supposition,
that he would have us substitute the authority of the
Church for that of the Mind and the Conscience.
XVIII.
There is yet another authority to which it is necessary
to refer, inasmuch as it is the highest present expression
of the intellect and moral sense of the country applied
to the regulation of human life in its secular relations.
We have seep that, so far as following Christ and his
precepts are concerned, there are many respects in
�and Modern Education.
89
which both the Church and the world are palpably
anti-Christian. The world rejects communism, celibacy,
and contempt of knowledge; and both Church and
world set at nought the most positive injunctions of
Christ and of the Bible, as in taking medicine and in
praying in Church. The practice of our Courts of
Law is equally in opposition to the. popular doctrine of
an infallible Bible. Yet, with curious confusion, the
popular mind still endeavours to concur with both;
and judges still have the audacity to assert that the law .
of the land is founded on the Bible.
I will give an example or two.
You will remember the passages I quoted (p. 44.) in
reprobation of the medical profession, and of those who,
in illness, “ Seek not to the Lord, but to the physicians.”
Well, we have among us a small sect calling itself after
a Bible-phrase, “ The Peculiar People.” These hold
that prayer is the only allowable resource for Christians
in tijne of sickness. They do not refuse to cure them
selves of hunger by food, of fatigue by rest, or to pick
themselves up when they fall. They have no consistent
theory or uniform practice respecting the relation of
means to ends. But because a verse in one of the
Epistles enjoins the calling in of the elders to pray over
the sick, and declares that “the prayer of faith shall
save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up;” (Jam.
v. 14.) they prefer to die sooner than call in a doctor, or
take any medicine. Had the Apocrypha been thought
fit by our Church to be included in the Canon, this sect
would have had no existence, for the Book of Ecclesiasticus contains several warm commendations of medicine
and medical men : saying, “ Honour the physician. . . .
for the Lord hath created him............... the Lord hath
�90
'Jewish Literature
created medicines out of the earth; and he that is wise
will not abhor them.” (xxxviii. i. 1-15, &c.)
A short time ago, however, the neighbours of the
people who are so very “ peculiar” as to show their faith
in the New Testament by their works, and to risk their
lives on the strength of a vote in an ecclesiastical council,
(that rejecting the Apocrypha,) were scandalised by
observing that they had allowed a child to die without
taking any human means to save it. An appearance in
the police-court followed, when the leaders of the sect
attempted to justify their conduct by an. appeal to the
Scriptures. But so diametrically opposed is the Spirit of
our Law to that of the Sacred Books upon which our
Law-Established Church is founded, that the magistrate,
though he made allowance for the offenders on the ground
of gross ignorance, flatly refused to receive their plea, and
warned them that on a repetition of the offence, nothing
would save them from being committed for trial on a
charge of manslaughter. And his conduct received the
approbation of a country calling itself Christian!
The other instance is that of the late case of “ Lyon
versus Home.” This was an action for restitution of’
money obtained under false pretences; and of course in
an action of this nature the one thing to be proved is
that the pretences under which the money was obtained,
were false.
The defendant Home is one of a sect of persons who
claim to hold intercourse with the spirits of the dead.
The prosecutor Lyon is, (or was,) a believer in thedoctrines of that sect, and in the defendant Home as one
of its chief apostles. She is, (or was,) also a wealthy
widow; and under the supposed injunctions of her
departed husband, as made known to her through the-
�and Modern Education.
91
mediumship of Home, she made over to Home a large
portion of her property, I believe some <£60,000, but
the amount, however material elsewhere, is not material
to our argument.
You will bear in mind that what I am about to relate
occurred in a country whose laws maintain, at an enormous
expense to its people, a Church called Christian, whose
Sacred Books,—which are accepted by the whole nation
officially as divinely inspired, and by the bulk of the
nation individually as infallibly true,—repeatedly and
unmistakeably affirm the leading doctrines of the sect to
which the parties in this case belonged; namely, that
intercourse is possible and frequent between the living
and the spiritual world.
To quote some of the numerous passages involving this
belief, there is the well-known story of the witch of
Endor, in which the spirit of Samuel is represented as
appearing to the witch, and delivering a discourse for the
benefit of king Saul. (1. Sam. xxxvii.) There is the
statement that at the crucifixion of Jesus, many of “ the
Saints which slept arose. . . . and appeared unto many.”
(Matt, xxvii. 52-53.) There is the story of the “Trans
figuration,” in which Moses and Elias, dead for hundreds
of years, appeared to the disciples; (xvii. &c.) the con
version of Paul, in which Jesus himself, sometime dead,
addressed Paul in an audible voice from heaven, (in the
words of a Greek Play ;*) (Acts ix. 4-6.) and the
summoning back of the spirit of Lazarus to his body.
(John xi. 25-43, &c.) There is the parable of the rich
man in torment conversing with the spirit of Abraham
in bliss, begging, with curious confusion between spirit
and matter, that the spirit of Lazarus might be permitted
* The Bacchae of Euripides.
�92
Jewish Literature
to “ dip the tip of his finger in water ” and cool the rich
man’s tongue : or, in case the alleviation of suffering
were not among the functions of the blessed, that the
spirit of Lazarus might be sent back to earth to convert
the five living brethren of the rich man; which last
request-was refused, not as the first was on the ground of
its impossibility, but as superfluous and useless. (Luke
xvi. 22, &c.). We read, too, of guardian angels, (Matt,
iv. 4.) and “ministering spirits;" (Heb. i. 14.) and of
a whole apparatus of intermediate intelligences existing
between God and man. In the Acts we find certain
pious Pharisees exclaiming of Paul, “ if an angel or
spirit hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” ♦
(xxiii. 9.) John tells us to “ believe not every spirit, but
try the spirits whether they be of God.” (1 John iv. 1.)
Job, in thrilling language, describes a spirit as passing
before his face and pausing to speak to him. (iv. 15, &c.)
The practice of necromancy is forbidden in Deuteronomy,
(xviii. 2.) its reality not being called in question; (though
how the Jews reconciled it with their denial of the after
life, does not appear.) The Gospels repeatedly refer to
cases of possession by spirits, without specifying their
nature or origin; and in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible,
the fact of apparitions of the dead is regarded as being,
for the Bible, past a doubt.
S.uch, on this point, are the tenets of the book which
it is an article of faith with the very people whose law
was invoked in the case of “Lyon versus Home,” im
plicitly to believe. And yet, so far from any proof
being required of the falsity of the defendant’s pretences,
they were at once assumed to be an utter and monstrous
imposition; and the defence was laughed out of court,
in face of the contents of the very book upon which the
�and Modern Education.
93
witnesses in it had been sworn : the book upon which
our Religion is “ by law established
and for the sake
of inculcating which as infallible, we insist upon vitiating
or crippling our whole system of National Education !
To these illustrations of the growing divorce between
ancient credulity and modem Belief must be added that
of Witchcraft; concerning the belief in which John
Wesley said that “The Bible and Witchcraft must stand
or fall together.” While the anger excited among us by
the devout utterances of the Prussian king over his late
successes, may be ascribed in some degree to the fact
that we are learning to repudiate the old notions which,
recognising success as the test of merit, make Divine
Providence the arbiter in human quarrels ; and in some
degree to the consciousness of having ourselves been
such eminent practisers in the same pietistic line as to
make king William’s conduct look very much as if meant
for a caricature of our own.
Having paid some attention to the recent sittings of
the Church Assemblies in Edinburgh, I have been pleased
to observe symptoms of a growing respect for the authority
of the Intellect and the Conscience in regard to matters of
Eaith, north of the Tweed. I have read that one clergy
man declared his belief that the sacrifice of Christ was
an atonement of sufficient value to counterbalance the
misdeeds of Satan himself, and justify the Almighty in
pardoning the Arch-fiend; and that another “ elder ”
valued the character of the Deity so highly “that his hair
stood on end at the notion that God could ever be re
conciled to the devil.” I take it as a hopeful sign that
these two theologians should thus renounce all claim to
judge such questions by the old dogmatic standards, and
appeal instead to their own moral sense. They have only
�94
'Jewish Literature
to carry the process somewhat further to perceive that the
God who could create such a being as the devil at dll, or
who could require to be propitiated towards his own off
spring by such a sacrifice as that of Christ at dll, is no
God worthy of being acknowledged or revered by any
being possessed of a spark of intelligence or independence
of spirit.
Lord Chesterfield once wrote to a friend, “Both
Shaftesbury and I have been- dead for several years; but
we don’t wish the fact to be generally known.” In the
same way very much of the Bible has been dead for
some time. It still exists, but is outliving its influence
for evil; and there are many who fancy themselves in
terested in keeping the fact from being generally known.
Yet that it is no chimera which I am encountering,
has just been powerfully illustrated by a discussion in
the House of Lords * in relation to University Tests;
wherein it was declared, both by Lord Houghton and by
the Marquis of Salisbury, that “ the immense majority
of the people of this country adhere to the authority and
teaching of the Bible; their reverence for it being so
absolute that any person who avows hostility to its
doctrines is disabled, not only from holding any office
connected with moral and religious teaching, but almost
from any political office. And that no one can appear at
the hustings with any chance of success, and announce
that he does not accept the Bible.”
XIX.
Sir John Coleridge was right when he said that this
Bible question promised shortly to become the great
* (Debate of May 11th 1871.)
�and Modern Education.
95
religious question of the time. It is so; not for the
reason he then anticipated, hut because the Bible, or
rather the popular theory about the Bible, stops the way
to our advance in all that favours the redemption, or
constitutes the highest good, of a people.
By reason of this one impediment our whole system
of national education “ hangs fire; ” while our systems
of private education are neutralised or vitiated. It is
therefore for those who are under no obligation to refrain
from using their reasoning faculties; those who decline
allegiance to any dispensation which imposes a penalty
for putting forth a hand to .sustain and forward that
which they regard as the Ark of their country’s redemp
tion ; (1 Chron. xiii. 9, &c.) those who believe that it is
only through man working together freely and intelli
gently with man towards the highest moral ends, that
real good is to be done;—it is for these, I say, to grapple
with the difficulty, and if need be, to take the place of
those who have hitherto been our teachers. If we are
no longer to regard the Bible as a Fetich, to be adored,
but not comprehended; if wfe are not to adopt as an
article of Faith the suggestion of the flippant Frenchman,
that the God of the Jewish Scriptures and of our own
advanced intelligence and moral sense, is in reality one
and the self-same Being ;■—that he was once as bad as
the Jews made him out to be, but has improved with
age and experience, (a suggestion I have lately heard
seriously propounded by a clergyman in despair at the diffi
culties he found in the Bible)—then the solution which
has now been proposed must be accepted by us: other
wise the intellect and the conscience must be rejected
altogether as illusory and inventions of the devil; and
some other criterion, and one which discards both
�96
yewish Literature
intellect and conscience, must be sought for to regulate
our judgment.
For my part, I think better of my countrymen than
to believe that when once the truth is put plainly before
them, they will long halt between the two opinions. I
believe that when once the alternative is shown to them
to lie between gross superstition and a rational religious
ness,—they will no longer endure that their faith be only
definable as believing what they know to be untrue; but will
insist on their children being trained to subject all
things to the test of a cultivated intelligence and moral
sense. Thus trained, they will peruse the Bible, no
longer as slaves, but in a spirit of intelligent appreciation,
sifting out the germs of truth for themselves, and not
scoffing at or rejecting the whole on account of the husks.
From henceforth the teacher in the schools of the
nation must never forget that it is the purpose of his
schoolroom to be the training-ground, not of any party or
sect, but whereon to develop the faculties which later in
life are to determine the nature of individual belief. To
impart a bias, or to anticipate or prevent the formation
of genuine, honest opinion, by the early instilment of
dogma, is at once to stultify every principle of sound
education, inasmuch as it is to repress the intellect and
contravene the moral sense. Whatever the views which
may be adopted in mature age by those who have been
educated under the system I am advocating, there will
be no cause to fear that they will be the' worse for being'
founded in an intelligence and moral sense which have
been thus rigidly trained in youth.
Shall it be said of our solution as was said by one
upon first beholding the sea, “ Is this the mighty ocean, •
�and Modern Education.
97
is this all ? ”
“ Yes,” we may confidently reply, in
respect to our reliance upon the intellect and the con
science developed by rational education, “ these are all.”
At first, indeed, you see from the margin but a small part
of them. But only trust yourself to them: launch boldly
out upon them: sail where you will with them, and they
will bear you safely through the whole universe of
being.”
At present, for us in England, the issue lies with our
School-boards. If their members are themselves ignorant
of the simple law of human development in religious
ideas, or are unworthily complacent to the ignorance and
superstition of their constituents, generations may pass
before the standard of education and religion is brought
up to the standard of modern thought and knowledge.
Generations may pass and the Bible will still be found
the subject of hopeless contention, and source of fatal
disunion and weakness. And generations long here
after will find the country sunk deeper and deeper in
ignorance and barbarism; while the nations which have
sprung from our race, and speak our language, will have
passed so far ahead of us that they can only look back
upon “ poor England” with pity and contempt as an effete
and imbecile land, “ whose prophets prophesied falsely,
whose priests bore rule by their means, and whose people
loved to have it so.”
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Jewish literature and modern education, or: the use and misuse of the Bible in the schoolroom, being two lectures delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, March 26th and April 2d 1871
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 97, [1, 3] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Publisher's list on unnumbered pages at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G3435
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Judaism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Jewish literature and modern education, or: the use and misuse of the Bible in the schoolroom, being two lectures delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, March 26th and April 2d 1871), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible
Judaism
Religious Education
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4b965b6b608142a4515b243239528a07.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=B-62q5zlsOObvJmkkD6Gzhjz8IIwn37o39wZGdDGeGFHOU12t9OJqXVhxaWbDvR4Wk69NatIVH8%7EeYdrahfgkW8AZINJltVUslGae7bH2-0Z72bH31V-W3gnwdb79tguzmGciA94WtLXrVeghBFWoVONDXo3-PjsJ5rrVJ-CRXWp1Nor3dn3MeBhC32SVjud62BjM3fE8vWxdk9Letu6ZNv3PWU1SXGd8IEaWsDPCy2uAqr51TMG1rxJc8iBUjERYyGEOwl5mG12ppvhNT5sityBMxkYRCQ8%7E5b8WMWPiKto-3WQWMvHWdqO2ivUjIqwehFpX6veU%7EpWA9RNTXjXsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f922e513a0e60e8a68b8bd796d1b1228
PDF Text
Text
Io f
W1; ’1; w
SCOTT
EXHIBITION
Under the Special Patronage of Her Majesty the Queen.
■7
■)
CATALOGUE
OF
THE LOAN EXHIBITION
In QUmnunwratwn of Sir cMalter Staff
AT
EDINBURGH
In the Galleries of the Royal Scottish A cademy,
National Gallery,
IN JULY AND AUGUST 1871.
EDINBURGH : THOMAS AND ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE,
PRINTERS TO THE QUEEN AND TO THE UNIVERSITY.
1871.
�THE OBJECTS OF EXHIBITION ARE—
1. Portraits of Sir Walter Scott, whether Paintings, Drawings,
Statues, Busts, Fine Impressions of the Best Prints, or Medals.
2. Specimens of his Autograph Writings, including some of the
Original Manuscripts of the Waverley Novels.
3. Pictures or other Works of Art illustrating his Writings and
Personal History.
�Under
the
Special Patronage of
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN.
JJHember# erf the Cermmittee.
Sir WM. STIRLING-MAXWELL of Keir
and
Pollok, Bart.,—Convener.,
His Grace the DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH and QUEENSBERRY, K.G.
The Right Hon.
the
EARL OF STAIR, K.T.
.
The Hon. LORD JERVISWOODE.
The .Right Hon. the LORD JUSTICE-GENERAL.
The Right Hon. Sir WILLIAM GIBSON CRAIG of Riccarton, Bart.
Sir HUGH HUME CAMPBELL of Marchmont, Bart.
Sir GEORGE HARVEY, P.R.S.A.
Sir J. NOEL PATON, R.S.A.
JAMES BALLANTINE, Esq.
ADAM BLACK, Esq.,
of
Prior Bank.
JAMES T. GIBSON CRAIG, Esq.
JAMES DRUMMOND, Esq., R.S.A.
DAVID LAING, Esq.
ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL SWINTON, Esq., of Kimmerghame.
H. W. CORNILLON, Secretary.
�CONTENTS.
PAGE
Pictures illustrative of the Writings and Personal History
of Sir Walter Scott; Portraits of Personal Friends;
Sketches and Drawings,
5
.....
Historical Portraits, and Pictures illustrative of the
Writings of Sir Walter Scott,
.
.
.
11
.
Portraits of Sir Walter Scott and his Family, with the
Miniatures of Friends and Historical Personages, .
16
Engravings illustrative of the Writings of Sir Walter
Scott, etc.,
.......
20
Engraved Portraits of Sir Walter Scott, his Family, and
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
Works by Sir Walter Scott,*
.
.
.
.
.
28
other Friends,
.
Manuscripts and Letters written by or having reference
.
.
.
.
.
37
Books edited by Sir Walter Scott,
.
.
.
.
40
to Sir Walter Scott,
.
Additional Manuscripts and Letters written by or having
reference to Sir Walter Scott,
.
.
.
46
Miscellaneous, ........
49
.
Busts, Tapestry, Armour, etc.,
.
.
.
.
.
54
List of Contributors,
.
.
.
.
.
57
.
�PICTURES illustrative of the Writings and Per
sonal History of Sir Walter Scott; Portraits
of Persona! Friends; Sketches and Drawings.
NORTH OCTAGON.
[The Numbers commence with the Oil Painting on the Left hand.]
1. LOCAL SCENERY of, and Scene in, “ The Antiquary.”
By W. F. Vallance.
Lent by David Corsar, Esq.
1*. WILLIAM BLACKWOOD. By Sir William Allan,
P.R.S.A., R.A.
Lent by John Blackwood, Esq.
2. WHITTAKER reading the List of Guests for the Restoration
Feast, “ Peveril of the Peak?’ By J. Oswald Stewart.
Lent by A. B. Spence, Esq.
3. CULLODEN MOOR. By Wm. Simson, R.S.A.
Lent by John White, Esq.
4. GEORGE KEMP. By Wm. Bonnar, R.S.A.
Lent by Thos. Bonnar, Esq.
5. SCENE from “ The Talisman.” By Sir John Watson Gor
don, P.R.S.A., R.A.
Lent by H. G. Watson, Esq.
6. SIR WALTER SCOTT’S Favourite Dog, “Camp.” By Howe.
Lent by Thomas George Stevenson, Esq.
7. SCENE. The Meeting of Mark and the Reformer with
Christie of the Clinthill and Edward Glendinning : “ The
Monastery.” By Macartney.
Lent by Mrs. Finlayson.
8. HARRIET, Duchess of Buccleuch, the Early Patroness of
Sir Walter Scott. By William Bonnar, R.S.A.
Lent by Thomas Bonnar, Esq.
9. FATHER CLEMENT and Catharine Glover, the “Fair
Maid of Perth.” By Thomas Duncan, R.S.A., A.R.A.
Lent by A. Dennistoun, Esq.
�6
NORTH OCTAGON.
10. THE STUDY AT ABBOTSFORD. By Sir Edwin LandJ
seer, R.A., IT.R.S.A.
Lent by W. P. Adam, Esq., M.P.
11. CHARLES MACKAY, as Bailie Nicol Jarvie.
Macnee, R.S.A.
Lent by Mrs. Glover.
By Daniel
12. HENRY MACKENZIE. By Colvin Smith, R.S.A.
Lent by Colvin Smith, Esq.
13. WALTER SCOTT in his Boyhood, and his pretty Nurse.
By Wm. Nicholson, R.S.A.
Lent by J. Rennie, Esq.
14. MONTROSE led Prisoner through Edinburgh, 1650.
James Drummond, R.S.A.
Lent by James Drummond, Esq.
By
15. RICHIE MONIPLIES. By George Hay, A.R.S.A.
Lent by John Williamson, Esq.
16. BEN VENUE from the Silver Strand. By Alex. Fraser,
R.S.A.
Lent by G. B. Simpson, Esq.
17. CHARLES MACKAY, “The Bailie.” By Sir John Watson
Gordon, P.R.S.A., R.A.
Lent by Mrs. Mackay.
18. PROFESSOR JOHN WILSON. By Sir John Watson
Gordon, P.R.S.A., R.A.
Lent by John Blackwood, Esq.
19. JOCK GRAY, the Original of Davie Gellatly.
Smellie Watson, R.S.A.
Lent by W. Smellie Watson, Esq.
By W.
20. PRINCE CHARLES and Flora Macdonald in the Cave.
By Thomas Duncan, R.S.A., A.R.A.
Lent by the Trustees of the late Alex. Hill, Esq.
21. BRUCE AND THE SPIDER.
By William Bonnar
R.S.A.
Lent by R. B. Wardlaw Ramsay, Esq.
22. ROBERT CADELL. By Sir John Watson Gordon,
P.R.S.A., R.A.
Lent by the Rev. R. H. Stevenson.
�NORTH OCTAGON.
7
23. ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE. By Sir Henry Raeburn,
R.A. Has been Engraved by G-. T. Payne.
Lent by Thomas Constable, Esq.
24. ALEXANDER BALLANTYNE. By John Ballantyne,
RS.A.
Lent by Robert M. Ballantyne, Esq.
25. ROLAND GRAEME’S Introduction to the Knight of
Avenel. By Patrick Allan Fraser, H.R.S.A.
Lent by Mrs. P. A. Fraser.
26. JEANTE DEANS on her Way to London. By W. Q.
Orchardson, A.R.A.
v
Lent by Robert Mercer, Esq.
27. LOUIS XI. and Oliver Dain : “ Quentin Durward.” By
W. B. Johnston, R.S.A.
Lent by Patrick Allan Fraser, Esq.
28. LOCH KATRINE. By Horatio MacCulloch, R.S.A.
Lent by Sir Andrew Orr.
29. JOHN GIBSON LOCKHART. By Robert Scott Lauder,
R.S.A.
Lent by John Blackwood, Esq.
30. THE ETTRICK SHEPHERD.
By Sir John Watson
Gordon, P.R.S.A., R.A.
Lent by John Blackwood, Esq.
31. FRANCIS JEFFREY. By Colvin Smith, R.S.A.
Lent by Colvin Smith, Esq.
32. THE GLEE MAIDEN. By R. S. Lauder, R.S.A.
Lent by Patrick Allan Fraser, Esq.
33. THE FUNERAL OF SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. By
Col. Sir James Alexander.
Lent by Col. Sir James E. Alexander.
34. M ATTRTCE DRUMMOND, Abbot of Inchaffray, blessing
the Scottish Army before the Battle of Bannockburn.
By James Drummond, R.S.A.
Lent by James Ballantine, Esq.
35. BOTHWELL CASTLE, on the Clyde. By Alex. Fraser,
R.S.A.
Lent by G. B. Simpson, Esq.
36. THOMAS THOMSON. By R. S. Lauder, R.S.A.
Lent by Lockhart Thomson, Esq.
I
�8
NORTH OCTAGON.
37. AN ANTIQUARY. By W. M. F. Douglas, R.S.A.
Lent by James T. Gibson Craig, Esq.
38. JAMES BALLANTYNE.
Lent by Rev, Raymond Blathwayt.
39. INTERIOR OF ROSLIN CHAPEL. By H. Hansen.
Lent by James Ballantine, Esq.
40. CUDDIE HEADRIGG. By Thomas Duncan, R.S.A., A.R.A.
Lent by John White, Esq.
40*. BAILIE NICOL JARVIE in the Clachan of Aberfoyle.
By Alexander Ritchie.
Lent by Robert Robertson, Esq.
41. TRUDCHEN (Quentin Durward). By William Dyce, R.A.,
ER.SA
Lent by Mrs. Cumine Peat.
42. JOHN BALLANTYNE.
Lent by John Ballantyne, Esq., R.S.A.
42*. LADY FORBES, Williamina Stuart Belshes. By George
Saunders.
Lent by the Right Hon. Lord Clinton.
43. THE CURLERS. By Sir George Harvey, P.R.S.A.
“ There was the finest fun amang the curlers ever was seen.”
Guy Mannering, chap, xxxii.
Lent by Gilbert Stirling, Esq.
44. DAVIE GELLATLY’S Mode of Delivering a Letter. By
Wm. B. Kidd, KR.S.A.
Lent by G. B. Simpson, Esq.
45. THE DAY AFTER PRESTONPANS. By J. Drummond,
R.S,A,
Lent by James Clark, Esq.
45*. VIEW OF ROSLIN, in Water-colour. By H. W. Williams.
Lent by Mrs. M. Sanson.
45**. RETURN OF JEANIE DEANS. By Sir William
Allan, P.R.S.A., R.A;
Lent by Professor Maclagan.
46. QUEEN MARY’S ROOM, Craigmillar Castle. By James
Drummond, R.S.A.
Lent by James Drummond, Esq.
47. STEINIE, the Son of Mucklebackit. By John Ewbank.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
48. PENCIL DRAWING of Castle Campbell. By R. Gibb, R.S.A.
SEPIA DRAWING of Tantallon Castle. By John Ewbank.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
�NORTH OCTAGON.
19? JOHN
9
KNOX’S HOUSE. By James Drummond, R.S.A.
Lent by David Laing, Esq.
50. SCOTT MONUMENT, a Drawing by George Kemp, and
presented by him to John Dick, Esq.
Lent by Mrs. Dick.
51. WEST BOW. By Walter Geikie.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
52. MELROSE ABBEY. By H. W. Williams.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
53. MELROSE ABBEY. By Mrs. Smith.
Lent by Mrs. Smith.
54. CUCHULLIN MOUNTAINS, Isle of Skye.
MacLeay, R.S.A.
Lent by Kenneth MacLeay, Esq.
By Kenneth
55. FRAME—four Drawings of Melrose; two Drawings of
Kelso. By W. H. Lizars.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
56. GOATFELL and the Mountains of Arran, from Brodick
Bay. By Kenneth MacLeay, R.S.A.
Lent by Kenneth MacLeay, Esq.
56*. JOHN DUKE OF ARGYLL. Drawing by J. Ramage.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
57. THE BASS. By Sam. Bough, A.R.S.A.
Lent by William Paterson, Esq.
58. SOUTH GRAY’S CLOSE, Edinburgh, in which stands Dr.
Rutherford’s House. Sketch by James Drummond, R.S.A.
Also
HIGH SCHOOL WYND, Edinburgh. And
DUNBAR’S CLOSE.
Cromwell’s Headquarters while in
Edinburgh—Looking towards the New Town, with the
Scott Monument.
Lent by James Drummond, Esq., R.S.A.
59. PORTRAIT of Professor Wilson. By James Swinton.
Lent by A. Campbell Swinton, Esq.
60. FIVE VIEWS OF EDINBURGH.
By Hamilton and
Ewbank.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
�10
NORTH OCTAGON.
61. DRYBURGH ABBEY. By William Banks.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
62. SIR WALTER SCOTT’S first School, Potterrow. By Mrs.
Smith.
Lent by Mrs. Smith.
63. EIGHT DRAWINGS. Illustrations for “Tales of a Grand
father.” By Lizars and Corbould.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
64. FIVE DRAWINGS, Illustrations of “ Waverley.” By
Heath.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
65. DESIGN for Scott Monument. By David Roberts, R.A.
Lent by W. D. Clark, Esq.
66. ROB ROY. Copy of Original Picture.
By Andrew
Henderson.
Lent by Kenneth MacLeay, Esq.
67. PORTRAIT of John Leycester Adolphus, Author of
“ Letters on the Authorship of the Waverley Novels.”
1821. By W. F. W. [William Frederick Witherington,
R.A.]
Lent by Mrs. Adolphus.
68. DAVID RITCHIE, the Original of the Black Dwarf.
Lent by David B. Anderson, Esq.
69. SMAILHOLM TOWER. Sketch.
Lent by James Drummond, Esq., R.S.A.
70. THIRTEEN DRAWINGS of Edinburgh. By J. Ewbank.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
71. QUEEN MARY at the Place of Execution. By David
Scott, R.S.A.
Lent by Thomas Bonnar, Esq.
72. FIVE DRAWINGS of Border Abbeys. By W. H. Lizars.
Lent by William MacDonald, Esq.
7 3. THE SHAFT of the Old Cross of Edinburgh, as it stood
in the Grounds of Drum. Sketch. Also
CARDINAL BEATON’S PALACE, Edinburgh. Demo
lished in 1870. Sketch.
Lent by James Drummond, Esq., R.S.A.
74. NINE DRAWINGS of Melrose, Abbotsford, etc., by John
Ewbank.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
�GREAT ROOM.
11
75. HEAD OF COLLEGE WYND—Situation of the House
where Sir Walter Scott was Born. By Wm. Smith.
Lent by Mrs. Smith.
76. SEVEN DRAWINGS
1 Dunkeld, by R. Gibb.
5 Views of Edinburgh, by J. Ewbank.
1 Jenny Geddes, by W. H. Lizars.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
77. JAMES I. appointing Sheriffs. By David Scott, R.S.A.
Lent by Thomas Bonnar, Esq.
78. NINE DRAWINGS in Bistre. By Wm. Gibb, R.S.A.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
GREAT ROOM.
HISTORICAL PORTRAITS, and PICTURES illus
trative of the Writings of Sir Walter Scott.
[The Numbers commence on the Left hand on entering.]
79. THE LADY of Avenel leaving Glendearg. By Alexander
Chisholm.
Lent by J. D. Gillespie, Esq., M.D.
80. CHARLES Prince of Wales, afterwards Charles I.
Honthorst.
Lent by James T. Gibson Craig, Esq.
81. BALFOUR OF BURLEY in the Cave.
Lent by Mrs. M. Sanson.
By
By Wm. Carse.
82. THE HEART OF MIDLOTHIAN. By Patrick Nasmyth.
Lent by William D. Clark, Esq.
83. COVENANTERS Preaching. By Sir George Harvey,
P.R.S.A.
Lent by the Glasgow Corporation.
84. KING JAMES VI.
Lent by James T. Gibson Craig, Esq.
85. ROSLIN CHAPEL. By Patrick Gibson, R.S.A.
Lent by David Laing, Esq.
�12
GREAT ROOM.
86. ANNE OF DENMARK, Wife of James VI.
Lent by James T. Gibson Craig, Esq.
87. GLENDINNING and the Monk. By John Pettie, A.R.A.
Lent by Robert Mercer, Esq.
88. THE BLACK DWARF. By Sir William Allan, P.R.S.A.,
R.A.
Lent by Trustees of the National Gallery of Scotland.
89. JEANIE DEANS in the Robbers’ Barn.
By William
Bonnar, R.S.A.
Lent by James Ballantine, Esq.
90. MORTON awaiting his Death at the hands of the Cameronians in the Farm-house of Drumshinnel. By W. F.
Douglas, R.S.A.
Lent by George Armstrong, Esq.
91. HENRY BENEDICT STUART, The Cardinal York.
Domenico Dupra.
Lent by Sir William Stirling-Maxwell, Bart.
By
92. BOTHWELL CASTLE. By Alexander Runciman.
Lent by James T. Gibson Craig, Esq.
93. PRINCE CHARLES'EDWARD STUART. Domenico
Dupra.
Lent by Sir Wm. Stirling-Maxwell, Bart.
94. THE PORTEOUS MOB. By James Drummond, R.S.A.
Lent by Trustees of the National Gallery of Scotland
and Royal Association for Promotion of the Fine
Arts.
95. JEANIE DEANS and the Robbers. By Thomas Duncan,
R.S.A., A.R.A.
Lent by Trustees of the National Gallery of Scotland.
96. PRINCE CHARLES at Holyrood. Original Sketch.
William Simson, R.S.A.
Lent by Robert Mercer, Esq.
By
97. SCENE from the “Talisman.” By Sir John Watson Gordon,
P.R.S.A., R.A.
Lent by H. G. Watson, Esq.
98. JAMES EDWARD STUART, Chevalier de St. George.
Lent by Sir Wm. Stirling-Maxwell, Bart.
99. HOY HEAD. By John Cairns.
Lent by G. B. Simpson, Esq.
�GREAT ROOM.
13
100. GEORGE IV. at Holyrood, 1822. With Sir Walter Scott
introduced as Bard. By Sir David Wilkie, R.A.
Lent by Her Majesty the Queen.
101. PETER PEEBLES in the Parliament Square. By Wm. B.
Kidd, 2LR.S.A.
Lent by J. D. Gillespie, Esq., M.D.
102. JEANIE DEANS begging the Life of her Sister from
Queen Caroline. By J. G. Middleton.
Lent by Alexander Dennistoun, Esq.
103. KING JAMES IV.
Lent by Sir Wm. Stirling-Maxwell, Bart.
104. THE FIERY CROSS. By J. Lamont Brodie.
Lent by The Mayor of Manchester.
105. PRINCE CHARLES coming down the Canongate. By
Thomas Duncan, R.S.A., A.R.A.
Lent by the Trustees of the late Alexander Hill, Esq.
106. THE DOOR of the Old Edinburgh Guard-House.
Wm. B. Kidd, KR.S.A.
Lent by David Bryce, Esq.
By
107. RAVENSWOOD and Lucy Ashton. By R. Scott Lauder,
R.S.A.
Lent by Francis Farquharson, Esq.
108. HENRY BENEDICT STUART, The Cardinal York.
Lent by J. Drummond, Esq.
109. JOHN GRAHAM OF CLAVERHOUSE,
Dundee. Painted by Sir Godfrey Kneller.
Lent by the Earl of Strathmore.
Viscount
110. THE BATTLE of Drumclog. By Sir George Harvey,
P.R.S.A.
Lent by James Muspratt, Esq.
111. WALLACE, the Defender of Scotland.
Painted by David Scott, R.S.A.
Lent by Robert Carfrae, Esq.
An Allegory.
111*. JOHN GRAHAM OF CLAVERHOUSE, Viscount
Dundee.
Lent by Lady Elizabeth-Jane Leslie-Melville Cartwright.
�14
GREAT ROOM.
112. JAMES GRAHAM, Marquis of Montrose.
Lent by the Earl of Dalhousie.
By Honthorst.
113. MARQUIS OF MONTROSE. By George Jamesone.
Lent by Lady Colquhoun.
114. BATTJE MACWHEEBLE at Breakfast. By James E.
Lauder, R.S.A.
Lent by James T. Gibson Craig, Esq.
115. PRINCE CHARLES reading General Cope’s Letter, while
at Holyrood. By William Simson, R.S.A.
Lent by T. A. Hill, Esq.
116. QUEEN MARY at Lochleven. By Thomas Duncan, R.S.A.,
A.R.A.
Lent by J. D. Gillespie, Esq., M.D.
117. THE LADY OF THE LAKE. By J. L. Brodie.
Lent by W. F. Sale, Esq.
117*. HEAD OF LOCHLOMOND. By Miss Jane Nasmyth.
Lent by Mrs. M. Sanson.
118. JAMES EDWARD STUART, Chevalier de St. George.
Lent by the Earl of Breadalbane.
119. FAST CASTLE. By Rev. John Thomson.
Lent by M. N. MacDonald Hume, Esq.
120. ROSE BRADWARDINE visiting her Father in the Cave,
with Food. By Wm. Bonnar, R.S.A.
Lent by John Inglis, Esq.
121. ROSE BRADWARDINE. By Robert Herdman, R.S.A.
Lent by A. B. Shand, Esq.
122. SIR WALTER SCOTT and his Friends. By Thomas
Faed, Esq., R.A., ER.S.A. Engraved.
Lent by Alexander Dennistoun, Esq.
123. EDINBURGH—1765. By W. De La Cour.
Lent by R. B. Wardlaw Ramsay, Esq.
124. PRINCE CHARLES EDWARD STUART.
Lent by the Earl of Breadalbane.
125. FAST CASTLE. By Rev. John Thomson.
Lent by M. N. MacDonald Hume, Esq.
�GREAT ROOM.
“The last scene of all.”
Herdman, R.S.A.
Lent by James Blaikey, Esq.
126. QUEEN MARY.
15
By Robert
127. HEROISM and Humanity. By Sir William Allan, P.R.S. A.,
R.A.
Lent by J. A. Butti, Esq.
128. STROMNESS BAY, Orkney. By John Cairns.
Lent by G. B. Simpson. Esq.
129. RUINS of the Ancient Castle of the Peverils, near Whit
ington. By George Barret.
Lent by Daniel Bruce, Esq.
130. VIEW of Edinburgh from the North. By Robert Norie.
Lent by David Laing, Esq.
131. THE ANTIQUARY. By William F. Douglas, R.S.A.
Lent by Thomas Bonnar, Esq.
132. LINLITHGOW PALACE. By Alexander Nasmyth.
Lent by Thomas S. Aitchison, Esq.
133. SHIPWRECK near the Fitful Head. By Thomas Fen
wick.
Lent by James T. Gibson Craig, Esq.
134. BRIDE OF LAMMERMOOR. By R. S. Lauder, R.S.A.
Lent by Mrs. Melville.
135. GEORGE HERIOT. Painted by Scougal, and Engraved
by J. and C. Esplens, 1743.
Lent by the Governors of George Heriot’s Hospital.
136. MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS. Cabinet Portrait.
Lent by James T. Gibson Craig, Esq.
137. QUEEN ELIZABETH.
Cabinet Portrait by Mark
Gerard.
Lent by David Laing, Esq.
�16
SOUTH OCTAGON.
SOUTH OCTAGON.
PORTRAITS OF SIR WALTER SCOTT and his
Family, with the Miniatures of Friends and
Historical Personages.
[Born 15 th August 1771.
Died 21st September 1832.]
138. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart., his Family and Friends.
Painted in 1825 from Miniatures, by W. Stewart Watson.
Lent by Mrs. Stewart Watson.
139. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart., sitting to J. Northcote, R.A.
Lent by Sir William W. Knighton, Bart.
140. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Cabinet Picture, Painted
for Lady Ruthven in 1831, by Sir Francis Grant, P.R.A.,
7LR.S.A. Engraved in 1835 by Thomas Hodgetts.
Lent by Right Hon. The Dowager Lady Ruthven.
141. THE STUDY AT ABBOTSFORD. By Sir Wm. Allan,
P.R.S.A., R.A.
Lent by T. Williams, Esq.
142. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. By Andrew Geddes, A.R.A.
Painted 1818.
Lent by Miss James.
143. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Painted for Mr. Wells
shortly after Sir Walter’s death, by Sir Edwin Landseer,
R.A., KR.S.A.
Lent by William Wells, Esq., M.P.
144. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Painted for Lord Chief
Commissioner Adam in 1828. By Colvin Smith, R.S.A.
Lent by W. P. Adam, Esq., M.P.
145. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. By Sir David Wilkie,
R.A. Painted in 1822.
Lent by Sir William W. Knighton, Bart.
146. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Painted for Lord Montague
by Sir Henry Raeburn in 1822.
Lent by the Right Hon. Earl of Home.
147. SIR WA.LTER SCOTT, Bart. Painted in 1820 for
George IV. by Sir Thomas Lawrence, P.R.A. It hangs in
the Corridor at Windsor Castle. It has been engraved
by Robinson and others.
Lent by Her Majesty the Queen.
148. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
Study of his Head.
�WOUTH OCTAGON.
17
Painted by Sir John Watson Gordon, P.R.S.A., R.A., for
his own use.
Lent by H. G. Watson, Esq.
149. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Painted in 1805 for Lady
Scott by James Saxon. The Picture was transferred to
Messrs. Longman and Co., London, and was engraved by
Heath in 1810.
Lent by William E. Green, Esq.
150. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Painted in 1808 by Sir
Henry Raeburn, R.A., for Mr. Constable, from whose
possession it came to the present Proprietor. It has
been engraved by C. Turner, and many others.
Lent by his Grace the Duke of Buccleuch.
151. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. By Gilbert Stewart
Newton, R.A. Painted in 1824.
Lent by John Murray, Esq., London.
152. GALA DAY AT ABBOTSFORD. Sketch in Sepia by
Sir William Allan, P.R.S.A., R.A.
Lent by James T. Gibson Craig, Esq.
153. THE AUTHOR OF WAVERLEY IN HIS STUDY.
Cabinet Portrait painted for R. Nasmyth, Esq., by Sir
William Allan, P.R.S.A., R.A., in 1831. It has been
Engraved by John Burnet.
Lent by the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery,
London.
154. GALA DAY AT ABBOTSFORD. Unfinished Sketch in
Oil Colour. By Sir William Allan, P.R.S.A., R.A.
Lent by Robert Horn, Esq.
155. THE ABBOTSFORD FAMILY. Painted for Sir Adam
Ferguson by Sir David Wilkie, R.A., in 1817.
Lent by Mrs. Ferguson.
156. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Painted for Mr. Cadell in
1830 by Sir John Watson Gordon, P.R.S.A. This has
been Engraved on a small scale by Horsburgh.
Lent by the Dowager Lady Liston Foulis.
157. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Painted by Colvin Smith,
R.S.A.
Lent by Colvin Smith, Esq.
158. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Painted in 1829 for the
Royal Society of Edinburgh, by John Graham Gilbert,
R.S.A.
Lent by the Council of the Royal Society.
�18
SOUTH OCTAGON.
159. A SCENE AT ABBOTSFORD during the Last Days of
Sir Walter Scott. Painted by G-ourlay Steell, R.S.A.
Lent by W. Logan White, Esq.
160. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Painted by Sir Henry
Raeburn, R.A. This was engraved by Walker in 1826,
and by others.
Lent by J. P. Raeburn, Esq.
161. SIR WALTER SCOTT in his Study in Castle Street,
Edinburgh, writing. Cabinet Portrait. Painted by Sir
John Watson Gordon, P.R.S.A., R.A. Engraved by R. C.
Bell for the Royal Association for the Promotion of the
Fine Arts in Scotland.
Lent by Henry G. Watson, Esq.
162. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
Painted by Thomas
Philips, R.A.
Lent by John Murray, Esq., London.
163. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.—“The Minstrel of the
Border.” Cabinet Portrait. Painted by Sir William
Allan, P.R.S.A., R.A. Engraved on a small scale.
Lent by John Blackwood, Esq.
164. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
Painted by Sir John
Watson Gordon, P.R.S.A., R.A.
Lent by Sir Wm. Stirling-Maxwell, Bart.
165. JOHN GIBSON LOCKHART. Painted by Henry William
Pickersgill, R.A.
Lent by John Murray, Esq.
166. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Painted by James Hall.
Lent by Sir William Stirling-Maxwell, Bart.
167. DR. JOHN RUTHERFORD, Professor of Physic, Edin
burgh University. The Grandfather of Sir Walter Scott.
(See Nos. 358 and 359*). Painted by Cosmo Alexander.
Lent by Dr. Rutherford Haldane.
167*. SIR WALTER SCOTT in the Character of Peter Pattieson. By Robert Scott Lauder, R.S.A. (Under South
Archway.)
Lent by John Blackwood, Esq.
[From 168 to 178** in Glass Case.]
168. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Drawing in Water-colour
by William Nicholson, R.S.A. Done about 1820.
Lent by Mrs. Nicholson.
�SOUTH OCTAGON.
19
169. SIR WALTER SCOTT as a Boy. Miniature.
Lent by James Young, Esq.
170. SIR WALTER SCOTT’S MOTHER. Miniature.
Lent by W. M'Donald, Esq.
171. MRS. J. G. LOCKHART. By Wm. Nicholson, R.S.A.
Lent by J. R. Hope Scott, Esq., Q.C.
172. FRAME, containing three Miniatures—
1. Sir Walter Scott, Bart.
2. Lord Byron.
3. Thomas Moore.
Enamelled by William Essex.
Lent by H. G. Bohn, Esq.
173. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Drawing in Water-colour
by Wm. Nicholson, R.S.A. Vignette.
Lent by W. C. C. Erskine, Esq.
174. JOHN GIBSON LOCKHART. By Sir Francis Grant,
P.R.A., KR.S.A.
Lent by J. R. Hope Scott, Esq., Q.C.
175. WILLIAM ERSKINE, Lord Kinnedder. By Wm. Nichol
son, R.S.A.
Lent by W. C. C. Erskine, Esq.
176. MINIATURE of Mrs. Alicia Cockburn (Miss Rutherford),
Authoress of “ The Flowers of the Forest.” Drawn by
Miss Anne Forbes.
Lent by A. D. Cockburn, Esq.
177. MINIATURE of Anne Duff, Countess of Dumfries. The
Friend of Mrs. Cockburn (No. 176). Drawn by Miss Anne
Forbes.
Lent by James T. Gibson Craig, Esq.
178. MINIATURE of Prince Charles Edward Stuart, with the
“ Highlander Ribbon.”
Lent by James Drummond, Esq.
178*. JOHN LEYCESTER ADOLPHUS.
Lent by Mrs. Adolphus.
178**. SIX JACOBITE MINIATURES, and One Bronze
Medal.
Lent by Robert Hay, Esq.
178f. THE BREAKFAST ROOM AT ABBOTSFORD (Sep
tember 1832). By Sir Wm. Allan, P.R.S.A., R.A.
Lent by Her Majesty the Queen.
�20
SOUTH ARCHWAY.
UNDER SOUTH ARCHWAY.
ENGRAVINGS illustrative of the Writings of
Sir Walter Scott, etc.
179. SERIES of Six Engravings in Illustration of “ Guy Mannering.”
Lent by the Royal Association for the Promotion of
the Fine Arts in Scotland.
180. SERIES of Six Engravings in Illustration of “ Rob Roy.”
Lent by Do.
181. COPY Portrait of Graham of Claverhouse. By J. Ramage.
Lent by Wm. MacDonald, Esq.
182. PLAY BILL with Cast of Rob Roy, on the occasion of
the Visit of his Majesty George IV. to the TheatreRoyal, Edinburgh.
Lent by James Ballantine, Esq.
183. ENGRAVED Portrait of Mr. Charles Mackay as “Bailie
Nicol Jarvie.”
Lent by James Drummond, Esq.
184. SERIES of Six Engravings in Illustration of “Old Mor
tality.”
This and the following Four Numbers lent by the
Royal Association for the Promotion of the Fine
Arts in Scotland.
185. SERIES of Five Engravings in Illustration of “ The.Pirate,”
and Engraved Portrait of Sir Walter Scott, after Sir John
Watson Gordon’s Painting of Scott in his Study in Castle
Street.
186. SERIES of Six Engravings in Illustration of “The Anti
quary.”
187. SERIES of Six Engravings in Illustration of “ The Lady of
the Lake.”
188. SERIES of Eight Engravings in Illustration of “ Waverley.”
�NORTH ARCHWA Y.
21
UNDER. NORTH ARCHWAY.
ENGRAVED PORTRAITS of Sir Walter Scott, his
Family, and other Friends.
189. SIB WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Full length. Painted by
F. Grant. Engraved by Thomas Hodgetts.
This and the following 19 contributed by Sir William
Stirling Maxwell, Bart.
190. WALTER SCOTT. Half length. Hayez, del. Milano,
litog. Vassalli.
191. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Full length.
Sir H. Raeburn. Engraved by R. Cooper.
192. SIR WALTER SCOTT.
Lawrence, P.R.A., pinxit.
Mezzotint.
Painted by
Half length. Sir Thomas
William Humphrey, sculp.
193. WALTER SCOTT. Half length. Copied from Robinson’s
Print after Sir T. Lawrence, but reversed. Laurens,
pinxit. Belnos, del. Lith. Lemerair. Paris and New
York.
194. SIR WALTER SCOTT. Engraved by W. Holl.
195. SIR WALTER SCOTT.
Medallion.
J. Bate, exect.
From a Medal by Stothard (No. 458), after a Bust by
Chantrey.
196. SIR WALTER SCOTT.
by Thompson.
Bust by Chantrey.
Engraved
197. THE ABBOTSFORD FAMILY. Painted by Sir D.
Wilkie. Engraved by Robert Graves, A.R.A.
198. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Half length. From the
original Picture by Mr. Leslie. London, C. Tilt, Sept.
1833.
199. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Half length. Painted by
J. Graham. Engraved by J. Thompson. Painted in 1829
for the Royal Society, Edinburgh. L. 762.
200. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Engraved with permission
of John Murray, Esq., from a Painting by T. Phillips,
R.A., by W. T. Fry.
201. WALTER SCOTT. Half length. Mr. T. Laurence,pinxit.
�22
NORTH ARCHWAY.
202. SIR WALTER SCOTT.
Bust.
203. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
204. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
pinxit.
H. Raeburn, 1811.
Half length. C. R. Leslie,
205. WALTER SCOTT, Esq. Bust. Raeburn,pinxit. C. Heath,
sculpt.
206. SIR WALTER SCOTT. Half length. Painted by C. R.
Leslie, R.A. Engraved by M. I. Danforth. London,
1829.
207. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
Bust.
R. Cooper, sculpt.
208. SIR WALTER SCOTT. Bust.
209. WALTER SCOTT, Esq. Full length, seated. Engraved
by C. Turner from the original Picture by Raeburn, in the
possession of Archibald Constable. Published 1810.
A Proof impression, having the Harp mark.
Lent by James T. Gibson Craig, Esq.
210. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Head. Engraved by Wm.
Walker from a Picture by Sir Henry Raeburn, R.A.
Dedicated to the King. Published 2d Oct. 1826. Edin.
and London. The original Picture in the possession of
J. P. Raeburn, Esq.
Lent by Dr. J. A. Smith.
211. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Half length. Painted by
Sir David Wilkie, R.A. Engraved by Ed. Smith.
This and Nos. 212 to 256 contributed by
J. Drummond, Esq.
212. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Full length. In his Study
reading Proclamation. Etching by Sir Wm. Allan from
his own Picture, painted in 1831.
213. WALTER SCOTT, Anno 1777. 2Et. 6. Miniature Por
trait. From an original, in a Frame. Engraved by
Horsburgh, 1839.
214. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Full length, seated. En
graved by Horsburgh from Picture by Sir H. Raeburn.
215. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Kit-Kat. T. Phillips, R.A.
Engraved by S. W. Reynolds in Mezzotint.
216. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Three-quarters. Engraved
by John Horsburgh. Painted by Sir John Watson Gor
don. Cadell, 1831.
�NORTH ARCHWAY.
23
217. WALTER SCOTT.
Head. Engraved by F. 0. Lewis.
Drawn by A. Geddes. London, Carpenter & Son. 1824.
218. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
John Ballantyne, R.S.A.
Head Size.
Drawn by
219. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Bust. W.H. Weisse, fee.
F. Schenck, lith.
220. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Painted by Sir David
Wilkie in 1826. Engraved by E. Smith.
221. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
W. Read.
Kit-Cat.
Engraved by
222. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Half length. Painted
by Sir Thomas Lawrence, P.R.A. Engraved by John H.
Robinson.
223. WALTER SCOTT, surnamed Beardie, Grandfather of Sir
Walter Scott. Engraved by G. B. Shaw from the Ori
ginal at Abbotsford.
224. WALTER SCOTT, Writer to the Signet, Father of Sir
Walter Scott. Engraved by G. B. Shaw, from a Picture
at Abbotsford.
225. ANNE RUTHERFORD, Mother of Sir Walter Scott,
Engraved by G. B. Shaw, from a Picture at Abbotsford.
226. LADY SCOTT.
Saxon, pinxit.
G. B. Shaw, sculp.
227. MRS. J. G. LOCKHART, Eldest Daughter of Sir Walter
Scott. Full length, with Dog. Engraved by G. B. Shaw.
Painted by Nicholson.
228. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Head in Oval, Coat of
Arms and Scotch Thistles.
On same page, view of
Abbotsford in rich frame. The whole surrounded by an
Ornamental border.
229. ANNE SCOTT, Second Daughter of Sir Walter Scott.
Engraved by G. B. Shaw. Painted by W. Nicholson.’
230. J. G. LOCKHART.
W. Allan, R.A.
G. B. Shaw.
231. SCENE AT ABBOTSFORD. Painted by E. Landseer,
A.R.A. Engraved by C. Westwood.
232. CHARLES EDWARD STUART. T. Wageman, Artist.
J. Cook, sculp.
233. COLONEL GARDINER. Engraved by G. B. Shaw.
�24
NORTH ARCHWAY.
234. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
Head size. Vignette
(Lithograph). Gatti, pinxit. Napoli R. Litografia Militare, 1829.
235. WALTER SCOTT. Head size. From one of the Raeburn
Pictures. Lith. vignette. Mauraisse, ft. 1826.
236. WALTER SCOTT. Half length. Vignette (Lithograph).
Napoli Lit. a Fergola, e De Falco. 1832. Proto e Marta,
pinxt.
237. THE ABBOTSFORD FAMILY. Engraved by John Smith
from Wilkie’s Picture painted in 1817. (Line.)
238. SIR WALTER SCOTT and his Family. Group of Nine
Figures. This Picture was painted in 1817 for Sir Adam
Ferguson. (Line.) Engraved by W. Greatbach. Painted
by Sir David Wilkie, R.A.
239. SIR WALTER SCOTT. Head size. Engraved by J. B.
Bird. Painted by G. S. Newton, R.A., in 1824.
240. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Head size. Engraved by
W. Finden from Newton’s Picture, painted in 1824.
241. SIR WALTER SCOTT (o&. 1832).
Engraved by H. T.
Ryall. Painted by J. P. Knight, R.A., in 1826.
242. THE AUTHOR OF WAVERLEY. Full length.
Outline. Published in “ Fraser’s Magazine.”
In
243. SIR WALTER SCOTT. Head and Shoulders. Engraved
by Holl. Vignette.
244. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
Wright, sculp.
245. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
by W. Read.
246. WALTER SCOTT, Esq.
Meyer.
Head.
Branston and
Half length.
Engraved
Head size. Engraved by H. T.
247. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
sculp.
Kit-Cat.
J. R. West,
248. SIR WALTER SCOTT. Sitting Posture. From Statue in
Monument at Edinburgh. (Lithograph.) Drawn by J.
Sutcliffe. Statue by John Steell, R.S.A.
249. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Statue by John Green
shields, on Pedestal, “ Sic Sedebat.” Engraved by G. B.
Shaw.
�NORTH ARCHWAY.
25
250. WALTER SCOTT. Medallion. Engraved by machinery
by T. S. Woodcock, Brooklyn, N.Y., from a Medal by
Crawford.
251. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Statuette, being Testimonial
to the Secretary from the Bannatyne Club. (See No. 439.)
252. WALTER SCOTT.
Head.
No Engraver’s name.
253. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Head size. No Engraver’s
name. W. Darton, London, 1822.
254. SIR WALTER SCOTT. Head and Shoulders. From
Raeburn’s Portrait.
255. SIR WALTER SCOTT. Head. From Raeburn’s Portrait.
256. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart., Colossal Marble Statue of.
Full length. Woodcut. John Steell, R.S.A.
257. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart., in his Study at Abbotsford.
Engraved from the original Picture in the possession of
R. Naysmith, Esq., P.R.C.S., and respectfully dedicated to
his Grace the Duke of Buccleuch, by his obliged servant,
William Allan. This is one of a very few impressions
thrown off with Mr. Nasmyth’s name misspelled.
This and Nos. 258 to 267 contributed by D. Laing, Esq.
258. WALTER SCOTT, Esq. Full figure, seated.
by Colin Campbell, Edin., 1817.
Engraved
259. WALTER SCOTT. Head in Oval. Small German Print.
Knigt, del, Riedel, sc.
260. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart., P.R.S.E.
Head and
Shoulders. Engraved by J. Thomson from an original
Picture (W. Nicholson).
261. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Head and Shoulders.
Knight and Lacey. London, 1828.
262. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Head size. No Engraver’s
name.
263. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Three-quarters, sitting.
Engraved by T. Crawford, 1833.
264. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
Roffe.
Head size.
265. WALTER SCOTT, Esq., Writing.
by T. Arrowsmith.
Engraved by
From a stolen Sketch
�26
NORTH ARCHWAY
266. SIR. WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Head Size.
W. T. Fry.
Engraved by
267. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Head and Shoulders.
Engraved by W. Holl, from, an Original Drawing.
268. THE AUTHOR OF WAVERLEY in his Study. W.
Allan, A.R.A., pinxt. E. Goodall, sculp.
This and Nos. 269 to 279 contributed by J. Rose, Esq.
269. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
Head and Shoulders.
Engraved by J. Thomson from a Drawing by J. Partridge.
London, 1823.
270. SIR WALTER SCOTT.
Head and Shoulders.
271. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Head and Shoulders.
After Sir J. W. Gordon.
272. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Copy from Engraving by
Hodgetts.
273. WALTER SCOTT. Naples, 16th April 1832.
part of body. Vinct. Morani, fee. (Na. 1832.)
graph Vig.
Upper
Litho
274. SIR WALTER SCOTT. Medallion. Engraved by Tacey.
The Ornament by Mitan, after H. Corbould.
275. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. A Composite Picture from
various Portraits of Sir Walter, at different periods, 1777,
1820, 1830, 1831. Designed by H. Corbould. Fngraved by W. Finden.
276. SIR WALTER SCOTT. Head and Shoulders.
by Woolnoth and Hawksworth, 1825.
Engraved
277. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
Head in outline.
278. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
Head in Small Oval.
279. WALTER SCOTT. Half length. W. N.,//., 1817 (Wm.
Nicholson). Autograph of Sir Walter Scott, and “ I beg
your acceptance of a specimen of Edinburgh Art, which I
hope you will like.”
280. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Half length. Drawn and
engraved by R. M. Hodgetts.
Lent by W. Riddell Carre, Esq.
281. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Head. Engraved by R.
W. Sievier from an original Sketch by Mr. Slater, 1821.
Lent by Daniel Bruce, Esq.
�NORTH ARCHWAY.
27
282. THE GRAVE of Sir Walter Scott in Dryburgh Abbey.
Drawn by J. A. Bell. Engraved by W. Millar.
Lent by J. Drummond, Esq.
283. SIR WALTER SCOTT’S ARMOURY at Abbotsford.
From a Painting by Col. Henry Stisted. Lithograph.
Lent by David Laing, Esq.
284. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Half length.
by R. Hodgetts, jun. Painted by Mr. Henry.
Lent by T. George Stevenson, Esq.
285. WALTER SCOTT, Esq. Half length.
Heath, sculpt.
Lent by W. Riddell Carre, Esq.
Engraved
Saxon, pinxt.
286. WALTER SCOTT, Esq. From a Picture by Raeburn.
Engraved by Picart from a Drawing by Evans.
Lent by A. Campbell Swinton, Esq.
287. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Engraved by E. Mitchell
from a Picture by Sir Henry Raeburn.
Lent by Archibald Hutton, Esq.
288. THE AUTHOR OF WAVERLEY.
Full length.
W. Crombie,/^.
Lent by Dr. John A. Smith.
B.
289. LANDSEER’S STUDIO, with the Bust of Sir Walter
Scott introduced from a picture. By Sir Edwin Landseer.
Lent by Henry Graves, Esq.
290. SIR WALTER SCOTT. Bust, Profile, Woodcut, from
Sketch by Robert Scott Moncrieff, Advocate, made in the
Parliament House between 1816 and 1820. In Leisure
Hour, July 1871.
Lent by Sir William Stirling-Maxwell, Bart.
�28
SOUTH OCTAGON.
SOUTH OCTAGON.
WORKS BY SIR WALTER SCOTT.
EARLY EDITIONS AND ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS.
291. THE CHASE, and William and Helen : Two Ballads from
the German of Gottfried Augustus Burger. Edinburgh :
Printed by Mundell and Son, R. Bank Close, for Manners
and Miller, Parliament Square. 1796. 4to.
Lent by Mr. Campbell Swinton.
292. GOETZ of Berlichingen, with the Iron Hand : a Tragedy.
Translated from the German of Goethe, author of the
“ Sorrows of Werther,” etc. By Walter Scott, Esq., Ad
vocate, Edinburgh. London : Printed for J. Bell, No.
148 Oxford Street. 1799. 8vo.
Lent by Mr. Campbell Swinton.
293. MINSTRELSY of the Scottish Border : consisting of His
torical and Romantic Ballads, collected in the Southern
Counties of Scotland; with a few of modern date, founded
upon local Tradition. Kelso : Printed by James Ballan
tyne. 1802. 2 vols. 8vo. (With the view of Hermitage
Castle. Williams, del. Walker, sculpt. And Autograph
of John Clerk, Eldin.) Vol. III., as usual, is called the
Second Edition. Edinburgh : Printed by James Ballan
tyne. 1803. 8vo.
Lent by Mr. Gibson Craig.
294. THE MINSTRELSY of the Scottish Border. In Three
Volumes. Second Edition. Edinburgh : Printed by James
Ballantyne. 1803. 3 vols. 8vo. Thick paper copy.*
Lent by Mr. Laing.
295. THE LAY of the Last Minstrel: a Poem, by Walter
Scott, Esq. London : Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees,
and Orme, Paternoster Row, and A. Constable and Co.,
Edinburgh. By James Ballantyne, Edinburgh. 1805.
4to. On the fly-leaf is written,
“ Mrs. Scott, from her affectionate son, the Author.”
Lent from the Abbotsford Library.
296. Another Copy of the same Edition, with Manuscript Cor
rections and Additions by the Author. On the fly-leaf Sir
Walter has written, “ This copy was prepared for the
Second Edition, upon the principle of abbreviating the
Notes recommended by the Edinburgh Review in their
notice of the Poem. But my friend Mr. Constable would
�^VUTH OCTAGON.
29
not hear of the proposed Abridgement, and so the anti
quarian matter was retained.—W. S., 15th June 1821.”
Lent by Her Majesty the Queen.
297. The Third Edition. Edinburgh. 1806. 8vo. A Pre
sentation Copy, with a Letter from the Author to George
Home, Esq.
Lent by Mr. Milne Home of Wedderbum.
298. MARMION : a Tale of Flodden Field. By Walter Scott,
Esq. Edinburgh : Printed by J. Ballantyne & Co., for
Archibald Constable & Company, Edinburgh; and Wil
liam Miller and John Murray, London. 1808. 4to.
Lent from the Signet Library.
299. THE ASHESTIEL MANUSCRIPT. A Volume “collected
and bound by me, in December 1848, J. G. L.” (John
G. Lockhart).
The Original MS. of Sir Walter Scott’s Autobio
graphy. 50 leaves. There is added in this Volume:—
1. The Petition of Walter Scott for admission as an
Advocate, 1791. (Exhibited as No. 362.) 2. Certificate
of Sir Walter’s Marriage in the Parish Church of St. Mary,
Carlisle, 23d December 1797. 3. Commission, Walter
Scott, Esq., to Mr. Charles Erskine, Sheriff-substitute of
Selkirkshire, 14th March 1800. 4. Commission by Lord
Napier, Lord-Lieutenant of the County of Selkirk, in favour
of Walter Scott, Esq., appointing him a Deputy-Lieutenant
of said County, 1800. 5. Burgess Ticket for the Burgh
of Kirkwall, 1814. 6. Burgess Ticket for the Burgh of
Dunfermline.
Lent by J. R. Hope Scott, Esq., Abbotsford.
300. THE ARTICLE ROMANCE. The ORIGINAL MANU
SCRIPT. By Sir Walter Scott. From the Supplement
to “ Encyclopaedia Britannica.” Presented by Professor
Napier to James T. Gibson Craig, Esq.
Lent by Mr. Gibson Craig.
300*. ORIGINAL ARTICLE on the “ Tales of My Landlord.”
Contributed to the Quarterly Review, in the handwriting
of Sir Walter Scott. 4to. Pp. 69.
Lent by Mr. Murray, London.
301. THE LADY OF THE LAKE; a Poem. By Walter
Scott, Esq. Edinburgh : Printed for John Ballantyne &
Co., Edinburgh; and Longman, Hurst, Rees, & Orme,
and William Miller, London. By James Ballantyne &
Co., Edinburgh, 1810. 4to. Presented to “William
Erskine from Walter Scott.”
Lent by Mr. Erskine of Kinnedder.
�30
SOUTH OCTAGON.
302. THE LADY OF THE LAKE.
The ORIGINAL
MANUSCRIPT.
Lent by Francis Richardson, Esq., Mickleham, Surrey.
302*. THE VISION OF DON RODERICK; a Poem. By
Walter Scott, Esq.
Edinburgh: Printed by James
Ballantyne & Co. 1811. 4to.
Lent from the Signet Library.
303. ROKEBY; a Poem. By Walter Scott, Esq. Edinburgh :
Printed for John Ballantyne & Co., Edinburgh; and
Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, & Brown, London. By
James Ballantyne & Co. Edinburgh, 1813. 4to. Copy
on Large paper with the inscription, “ William Erskine,
Esq., from his affectionate friend, the Author.”
Lent by Mr. Erskine of Kinnedder.
304. ROKEBY; a Poem in Six Cantos.
The ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT, on mixed quarto and
folio paper. The chief portion of Cantos I.-III. having been
transmitted in single sheets by the Post-Office, addressed
Mr. James Ballantyne, Printer, Hanover Street, Edinburgh,
have the stamps Melrose, Galashiels; with various notes
and letters of instructions, etc., to Mr. Ballantyne. 1813.
Lent by Mr. Hope Scott, Abbotsford.
305. THE LORD OF THE ISLES; a Poem. By Walter
Scott, Esq. Edinburgh : Printed for Archibald Constable
& Co., Edinburgh; and Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme,
and Brown, London; by James Ballantyne & Co., Edin
burgh. 1815. 4to.
Lent from the Signet Library.
306. THE LORD OF THE ISLES.
The ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT, with the Printers’
Marks, and some portions written upon a larger-sized
paper, with extracts for the Notes, in a different hand. 1815.
Lent by Mr. Hope Scott, Abbotsford.
307. THE BRIDAL OF TRIERMAIN; or, The Vale of St.
John. Anon. Edinburgh. 1813. 12mo.
This and Nos. 308 to 313 Lent from the Signet Library.
308. THE FIELD OF WATERLOO; a Poem.
Scott, Esq. Edinburgh, 1815. 8vo.
By Walter
309. HAROLD THE DAUNTLESS; a Poem, in Six Cantos.
By the Author of “ The Bridal of Triermain.” Edin
burgh. 1817. 12mo.
�SOUTH OCTAGON.
31
310. THE VISIONARY. Nos. I. II. III. Edinburgh : Printed
for William Blackwood, Edinburgh; and T. Cadell &
W. Davies, Strand, London. 1819. 12mo.
310*.HALIDON HILL : a Dramatic Sketch from Scottish His
tory. By Sir Walter Scott, Bart. Edinburgh. 1822. 8vo.
311. THE DOOM OF DEVORGOIL; a Melo-Drama. Auchindrane, or the Ayrshire Tragedy. By Sir Walter Scott,
Bart. Printed for Cadell and Company, Edinburgh.
1830. 8vo.
312. PAUL’S LETTERS TO HIS KINSFOLK. Edinburgh:
Printed by James Ballantyne & Co. for Archibald Con
stable & Company, Edinburgh. 1816. 8vo.
312*.LETTERS ON DEMONOLOGY AND WITCHCRAFT,
addressed to J. G. Lockhart, Esq. By Sir Walter Scott,
Bart. London : John Murray, Albemarle Street. 1830.
12mo. (Murray’s Family Library).
313. THE LIFE OF NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE, Emperor
of the French; with a Preliminary View of the French
Revolution. By the Author of Waverley, etc. Long
man, Rees, Orme, Brown, & Green, London; and Cadell
& Co., Edinburgh. Printed in 1827. 9 vols. Post 8vo.
314. LETTERS to the Edinburgh Weekly Journal, on the Change
of the Currency, by Malachi Malagrowther. Edinburgh.
1826. 8vo.
This and No. 314* Lent by Mr. Campbell Swinton.
314*.RELIGIOUS DISCOURSES. By a Layman. London:
Henry Colburn, New Burlington Street. 1828. 8vo.
315. THE HISTORY OF SCOTLAND. By Sir Walter Scott,
Bart. In Two Volumes. London: Printed for Long
man, Rees, Orme, Brown, & Green, Paternoster Row; and
John Taylor, Upper Gower Street. 1829, 1830. 2 vols.
12mo. (Gardner’s Cyclopaedia).*
315*. MEMOIRS of the Marchioness De La Rochejaquelein.
Translated from the French. Edinburgh : Printed for
Constable & Co. 1827. 12mo. Constable’s “ Miscellany
of Original and Selected Publications.” *
316. CATALOGUE of the Library at Abbotsford. [Prepared
by J. G. Cochrane.] Edinb. 1838. 4to.*
Copies of this Catalogue presented by Major Sir Walter
Scott, Bart., to the Bannatyne Club. Copies were also
provided for the Maitland Club, as the contribution of
John G. Lockhart, Esq.
�32
SOUTH OCTAGON.
317. THE WAVERLEY NOVELS. Author’s Edition. Eight
Volumes of the Copyright text, selected as specimens,
containing the Manuscript Introductions and Annotations
by Sir Walter Scott, 1829-1832 :—
Vol. I. Waverley.
II. Waverley and Guy Mannering.
III. Guy Mannering continued.
IV. The Antiquary.
V. The Antiquary continued, and Rob Roy.
VI. Rob Roy continued.
VII. The Black Dwarf and Old Mortality.
XVII. The Abbot—Kenilworth.
Lent by Messrs. A. & C. Black.
The Printed Books and MSS. between Nos. 315 and 408,
marked * at the end, Lent by Mr. D. Laing from his own
Collection.
318. WAVERLEY; or, ’Tis Sixty Years Since. In Three
Volumes.
Edinburgh: Printed by James Ballantyne
and Co., for Archibald Constable and Co., Edinburgh;
and Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, London.
1814. 3 Vols. 12mo.*
319. GUY MANNERING. By the Author of “Waverley.”
Edinburgh : Printed by James Ballantyne & Co. 1815.
3 Vols. 12mo.
Lent from the Signet Library.
320. THE ANTIQUARY. By the Author of “Waverley”
and “ Guy Mannering.” Edinburgh : Printed by James
Ballantyne. 3 Vols. 1816. 12mo.
This and Nos. 321, 323, 326, 328, 329, and 348 Lent
by Mr. W. Paterson.
321. ROB ROY. By the Author of “Waverley,” “Guy Man
nering,” and “ The Antiquary.” Edinburgh : Printed
by James Ballantyne & Co. 1818. 12mo.
322. ROB ROY. The ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT.
Lent by J. R. Hope Scott, Esq.
The history of this interesting volume is thus given in
a foot-note by Mr. Cadell:—“ This, the Original Manu
script (prima cura of the Author) of the Novel of Rob
Roy, was one of the volumes of MSS. presented by Sir
Walter Scott to Mr. Constable in 1822 on the death of
LordKinnedder, and was sold by auction by Mr. Constable’s
�SOUTH OCTAGON.
33
Trustees on 19th August 1831 ; and it was purchased by
Mr. Wilks, M.P., and resold by auction on 2'2d March
1847, when it fell into the possession of Mr. R. Cadell of
Edinburgh, by whom it is this day presented, with
kind regards, to J. G-. Lockhart, Esq.
“Ratho, 15th August 1848.”
There is inserted the following note to “ Mr. James
Ballantyne, St. John Street—
“ Dear James,
With great joy
I send you Roy.
’Twas a tough job,
But we’re done wi’ Rob.
I forgot if I mentioned Terry in my list of friends.
Pray send me two or three copies as soon as you can.
And we must not forget Sir William Forbes.—Yours
ever,
W. S.”
323; TALES OF MY LANDLORD, Collected and Arranged
by Jedediah Cleishbotham, Schoolmaster of Gandercleugh; Edinburgh: Printed for William Blackwood,
Princes Street, and John Murray, Albemarle Street, Lon
don. Four Vols. 1816. 12mo. Vols. I. and II. The
Black Dwarf. Vols. III. and IV. Old Mortality.
323*. OLD MORTALITY. The ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT.
Lent by Francis Richardson, Esq., Mickleham, Surrey.
324. TALES OF MY LANDLORD. Second Series. Collected
. and Arranged by Jedediah Cleishbotham, Schoolmaster and
Parish-Clerk of Gandercleugh. Edinburgh : Printed for
Archibald Constable & Company. 1818. 4 Vols. 12mo.
Containing Heart of Midlothian.
This and Nos. 327 to 330, and 333 Lent from the
Signet Library.
325. THE HEART OF MIDLOTHIAN. The ORIGINAL
MANUSCRIPT. 1818.
Lent by John Cowan, Esq., Beeslack, Penicuik.
326. IVANHOE. A Romance. By the Author of “ Waverley.”
Edinburgh. 1820. 3 Vols. 12mo.
327. THE MONASTERY. A Romance. By the Author of
“Waverley.” Edinburgh. 1820. 3 Vols. 12mo.
328. THE ABBOT.
A Romance.
By the Author
“Waverley.” Edinburgh. 1820. 3 Vols. 12mo.
c
of
�34
SOUTH OCTAGON.
329. KENILWORTH; A Romance.
By the Author of
“Waverley,” “Ivanhoe,” etc. Edinburgh. 1821. 3 Vols.
12mo.
330. THE PIRATE. By the Author of “ Waverley,” “ Kenil
worth,” etc. Edinburgh: Printed for Archibald Con
stable & Co.; and Hurst, Robinson, & Co., London.
1822. 3 Vols. 12mo.
331. THE PIRATE. The concluding leaves of the Original
Manuscript. Volume I. Presented to Mark Napier,
Esq., by Mr. John Alexander Ballantyne. This remnant,
says Mr. N., “is specially valuable, as it comprehends
Sir Walter Scott’s corrected draft of the beautiful verses
with which the First Volume of the Pirate concludes—
the ‘Farewell to Northmaven.’ . . . Mr. Ballantyne took
occasion one day, in his own office, to present me with
this valuable and interesting Autograph, which he told me
was the last fragment he possessed of Sir Walter Scott’s
copy for the printer.”
Lent by Mark Napier, Esq.
332. THE PIRATE.
The principal portion
MANUSCRIPT. In One Volume.
Lent by the Rev. R. H. Stevenson.
ORIGINAL
333. FORTUNES OF NIGEL. By the Author of “Waverley,”
“Kenilworth,” etc. Edinburgh. 1823. Three Vols.
12mo.
334. TALES OF MY LANDLORD. Series Third. The
ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT, Bride of Lammermoor,
containing the first seven Chapters of Volume I. and
Chapters IV. to Chapter XII. Vol. II.
Lent by Mr. Christopher Douglas.
335. THE BRIDE OF LAMMERMOOR. A large portion
of the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT.
Lent by Sir James Hall, Bart., of Dunglass.
336. THE LEGEND OF MONTROSE. A portion of the
ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT near the commencement.
Chapter III. etc. Presented to Mr. Laing by the late John
Alexander Ballantyne, Esq., Printer (along with the next
Number).*
336*. KENILWORTH. A portion of the Original Manuscript
of the earlier Chapters. (See No. 336.)*
�SOUTH OCTAGON.
35
^TJPEVERIL OF THE PEAK. By the Author of “Waver
ley,” “ Kenilworth,” etc. Edinburgh : Printed for Archi
bald Constable & Co., Edinburgh ; and Hurst, Robinson,
& Co., London. 1822. 4 Vols. 12mo.
This and Nos. 338, 339, 341, 344, 345, 347,'and
348 Lent from the Signet Library.
338. QUENTIN DURWARD.
12mo.
3 Vols.
Edinburgh.
1823.
339. REDGAUNTLET, a Tale of the Eighteenth Century.
By the Author of “ Waverley.” Edinburgh: Printed for
Archibald Constable & Co., Edinburgh; and Hurst,
Robinson, & Co., London. 3 Vols. 1824. 12mo.
340. REDGAUNTLET. The ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT.
4to. 1824.
Lent by Dowager Lady Liston Foulis.
341. ST. RONAN’S WELL. By the Author of “Waverley,”
“ Quentin Durward,” etc. Edinburgh : Printed for Archi
bald Constable & Co., Edinburgh ; and Hurst, Robinson,
& Co., London. 1824. 3 Vols. 12mo.
342. ST. RONAN’S WELL. The ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT.
1824.
Lent by A. Skene, Esq., Aberdeen.
343. A PROOF-COPY of the First Sheet of St. Ronan’s Well,
with the Author’s Corrections, sent to Mr. Ballantyne.*
344. TALES OF THE CRUSADERS. By the Author of
“ Waverley,” “ Quentin Durward,” etc. Edinburgh :
Printed for Archibald Constable & Co., Edinburgh; and
Hurst, Robinson, & Co., London. Vols. I. and II. The
Betrothed; Vols. III. and IV. The Talisman. 1825.
4 Vols. Post 8vo.
345. WOODSTOCK; or, The Cavalier. A Tale of the Year
Sixteen Hundred and Fifty-one. By the Author of
“ Waverley,” “ Tales of the Crusaders,” etc. Edinburgh :
Printed for Archibald Constable & Co., Edinburgh; and
Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, & Green, London. 1826.
3 Vols. 12mo.
346. CHRONICLES OF THE CANONGATE, containing “The
Fair Maid of Perth,” “ The Highland Widow,” and “ The
Surgeon’s Daughter.”
The ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT.
Lent by Dr. J. D. Gillespie.
�36
SOUTH OCTAGON.
347. CHRONICLES OF THE CANONGATE. By the Author
of “ Waverley,” etc.
Containing “ The Two Drovers,”
“ Highland Widow,” and “ Surgeon’s Daughter.” Edin
burgh : Printed for Cadell and Co., Edinburgh; and
Simpkin and Marshall, London. 1827. 2 Vols. 12mo.
Lent from the Signet Library.
348. CHRONICLES OF THE CANONGATE. Second Series.
Containing “ St. Valentine’s Day, or The Fair Maid of
Perth.” Edinburgh. 1828. 3 Vols. 12mo.
349. ANNE OF GEIERSTEIN : or, The Maiden of the Mist.
By the Author of “ Waverley,” etc. In Three Volumes.
Edinburgh : Printed for Cadell and Co., Edinburgh : and
Simpkin and Marshal, London. 12mo.
This and Nos. 350 to 353, and 355* Lent from the
Signet Library.
349*.TALES OF MY LANDLORD. Fourth Series. Castle
Dangerous. The ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT, in the
handwriting of William Laidlaw, with Corrections and
Additions by the Author.
Lent by Francis Richardson, Esq.
350. TALES OF MY LANDLORD. Fourth and Last Series.
Collected and Arranged by Jedediah Cleishbotham, School
master and Parish-Clerk of Gandercleugh. Printed for
Robert Cadell, Edinburgh; and Whittaker and Co.,
London. 1832. 4 Vols. 12mo. Containing “Count
Robert of Paris ” and “ Castle Dangerous.”
351. THE WAVERLEY DRAMAS. Vol. I. Containing
George Heriot—Ivanhoe—The Battle of Bothwell Bridge
—The Pirate—and, Peveril of the Peak.
Vol. II. Containing Montrose—Waverley—Redgauntlet
—Mary Queen of Scots, and The Talisman.
John Anderson, jun., Edinburgh, and Simpkin &
Marshall, London. 1823. 2 Vols. 12mo.
352. THE POETRY contained in the Novels, Tales, and
Romances of the Author of “ Waverley.” Edinburgh :
Printed for Archibald Constable and Co., and Hurst,
Robinson, and Co., London. 1822. 12mo.
353. TALES OF A GRANDFATHER, being Stories taken from
Scottish History. Humbly inscribed to Hugh Littlejohn,
Esq. In Three Vols. Printed for Cadell & Co., Edin
burgh; Simpkin & Marshall, London. 1828. 12mo.
Ditto. Second Series. Three Vols. 1829.
Third Series.
Three Vols. 1830.
�SOUTH OCTAGON.
37
354. TALES OF A GRANDFATHER. First Series. The
ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT. 1828.
Lent by George Hogarth, Esq., Banker, Cupar-Fife.
355. TALES OF A GRANDFATHER. Another portion of
the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT. 1828.
Lent by Francis Richardson, Esq.
355*. TALES OF A GRANDFATHER; being Stories taken
from the History of France. 1831. 3 Vols.
356. A SERIES of Sketches of the existing Localities alluded
to in the Waverley Novels. Etched from Original Draw
ings. By James Skene, Esq. Robert Cadell, Edin
burgh. 1831. Royal 8vo.*
357. A COLLECTION of Engravings after celebrated Artists,
to Illustrate the Works of Sir Walter Scott. Proof Im
pressions, bound in Two Volumes. Large folio.
Lent by Robert Horn, Esq., Advocate.
MANUSCRIPTS and LETTERS written by or
hauing reference to Sir Waiter Scott.
358. CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE betwixt “ Mr. Walter Scott,
Writer to the Signet, eldest lawfull son of Mr. Robert
Scott in Sandieknow, and Mrs. Anne Rutherfurd, eldest
daughter of Doctor John Rutherfurd, Professor of Medi
cine in the Colledge of Edinburgh, and the deceast Mrs.
Jean Swinton, his first spouse, daughter of the deceast
Sir John Swinton of that Ilk,” etc.
(Subscribed) Walter Scott, Ann Rutherford.
Robert Scott, Jo. Rutherfoord (witnesses).
Six leaves written on stamped paper.
25th April 1758.
Lent by Dr. Daniel Rutherfurd Haldane, Edinburgh.
359. CONTRACT between James Brown, Architect in Edinburgh, and Walter Scott, Writer to the Signet, to feu and
build a Dwelling-house, with Cellars, Coach-house, etc., on
the West Row of the great Square called George Square,
[No. 25] at the annual feu of £5,14s., the first payment to
commence at Whitsunday 1773.
Six pages, each signed Walter Scott.
This and No. 359* Lent by Mr. D. Laing.
�38
SOUTH OCTAGON.
359*. LETTER of Doctor John Rutherfoord, without any ad
dress, evidently relating to his grandchild’s illness. It
begins, “ D. Sir,—Mr. Scot has been with me just now,
and given me an account of his son’s illness, and what
you had done for them very properly. But as the Disease
seems to be increasing, I think -you should immediately
apply a Blister across the forepart of his neck, etc. . . .
Meantime keep the room quiet tho’ not too closs or warm.
I am, in haste,—D. Sir, yours most sincerely,
“Jo. Rutherfoord.
“ Saturday, past 8 p.m.”
360. LETTER, Mrs. A. Cockburn addressed to the Rev. Dr.
Douglas, Minister of Galashiels, containing the description
of Sir Walter Scott when a youth of about six years of
age. First printed by Mr. Lockhart in his Life of Scott,
as follows :—
“I last night supped, in Mr. Walter Scott’s. He has the most
extraordinary genius of a boy I ever saw. He was reading a
poem to his mother when I went in. I made him read on ; it
was the description of a shipwreck. His passion rose with the
storm. He lifted his eyes and hands. ‘There’s the mast gone,’
says he ; ‘ crash it goes !—they will all perish ! ’ After his agita
tion, he turns to me, ‘ That is too melancholy,’ says he ; ‘I had
better read you something more amusing,’ etc.
“ When taken to bed last night, he told his aunt he liked that
lady. ‘What lady?’ says she. ‘Why, Mrs. Cockburn; for-I
think she is a virtuoso like myself.’ ‘Dear Walter,’ says Aunt
Jenny, ‘what is a virtuoso?’ ‘Don’t ye know? Why, it’s one
who wishes and will know everything.’—Now, sir, you will think
this a very silly story. Pray, what age do you suppose this boy
to be ? Name it now, before I tell you. ‘Why, twelve or four
teen.’ No such thing ; he is not quite six years old. He has a
lame leg, for which he was a year at Bath, and has acquired the
perfect English accent, which he has not lost since he came, and he
reads like a Garrick. You will allow this an uncommon exotic.”
Also a small Photograph Portrait of Mrs. Cockburn.
Lent by Miss Douglas, Cumin Place, Grange.
361. FACSIMILE of a School Exercise addressed to Dr. Adam
in the History of the High School of Edinburgh, by
William Steven, D.D., 1849. 12mo.*
362. THE PETITION of Walter Scott, son of Mr. Walter
Scott, Writer to the Signet, unto the Right Honourable
the Lords of Council and Session, to be taken upon Trials
for passing as Advocate, 13th May 1791. With the
attestation of the several Examinators, from June 1791
to July 1792.
Lent by Mr. Hope Scott.
�SOUTH OCTAGON.
39
363. DISPUTATIO Juridica, ad Tit. xxiv.
Lib. xlviii.
Pand. de Cadaveribus Damnatorum, Gualterus Scott,
Auct. et Resp. Ad diem 10 Julii, hor. loc. sol. Edin
burgh 1792. 4to.*
364. CASE for the Rev. Mr. M‘Naught, Minister of the Gospel
at Girthan, to be heard at the Bar of the Venerable
Assembly, May 1793, signed Walter Scott; and other
Papers. In 1 Vol.
Lent by Mr. Campbell Swinton.
365. THE SPECULATIVE SOCIETY. Volume of Scroll
Minutes of the Speculative Society from 14th November
1786 to 1st April 1795. The portion of the Minutes,
from 26th November 1791 being holograph of Sir
Walter Scott. Folio.
Also
366. CASH-BOOK of the Speculative Society, commencing
28th November 1786, ending 26th November 1839. 4to.
Lent by the Speculative Society, University.
367. DIPLOMA. Latin Diploma of the Speculative Society,
conferring the degree of an Honorary Member on John
Wilde, Advocate, Professor of Civil Law in the University
of Edinburgh. Written and signed “ Gualterus Scott,
a Secretis. Apud Edinburgum, Feb. 1793/’*
368. ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT: “The Lamentation of the
Faithful Wife of Asan Aga, from the Morlachian lan
guage.” In twenty-seven stanzas, beginning—
“ What yonder glimmers so white on the mountain,
Glimmers so white where yon sycamores grow ?
Is it wild swans around Vaga’s fair fountain ?
Or is it a wreath of the wintry snow ?”
This spirited translation from the German Ballad by
Goethe has probably never been printed. The handwrit
ing is about 1798, and the translation was well known to
some of Sir Walter’s early friends. Goethe’s German
version is entitled “ Klaggesang von der edlen Frau des
Asan-Aga. Morlachisch.
“Was ist Weisses dort am griinen Walde ?
1st es Schnee wohl, oder sind es Schwane ? ” etc.
It was first published by Herder in his well-known collec
tion, “ Volkslieder.” A more literal version by Professor
Aytoun, called “ The Doleful Lay of the Wife of Asa Aga,”
is contained in the Volume of Poems and Ballads of
Goethe. Translated by W. E. Aytoun and T. Martin. 1859.
Lent by Messrs. A- & C. Black.
�40
SOUTH OCTAGON.
BOOKS Edited by SIR WALTER SCOTT.
369. SIR TRISTREM; a Metrical Romance of the Thirteenth
Century. By Thomas of Ercildoune, called The Rhymer.
Edited from the Auchinleck MS. by Walter Scott, Esq.,
Advocate. Edinburgh : Printed by James Ballantyne,
for Archibald Constable & Co., Edinburgh; and Long
man & Rees, London. 1804. Royal 8vo.*
370. ORIGINAL MEMOIRS, written during the Great Civil
War; being the Life of Sir Henry Slingsby, and Memoirs
of Captain Hodgson, with Notes, etc. Edinburgh: Printed
by James Ballantyne & Co. for Archibald Constable &
Co., Edinburgh. 1806. Large paper. 8vo.*
371. MEMOIRS OF ROBERT CARY, Earl of Monmouth,
written by Himself. And Fragmenta Regalia ■, being a
History of Queen Elizabeth’s Favourites. By Sir Robert
Naunton. With Explanatory Annotations. Edinburgh :
Printed by James Ballantyne & Co. for Archibald Con
stable & Co., Edinburgh. 1808. 8vo.
372. THE WORKS OF JOHN DRYDEN, now first Collected.
In Eighteen Volumes. Illustrated, with Notes, Historical,
Critical, and Explanatory; and a Life of the Author.
By Walter Scott, Esq. London : Printed for William
Miller, Albemarle Street, by James Ballantyne & Co.,
Edinburgh. 1808. Large paper. Royal 8vo.
Nos. 371 and 372 Lent from the Signet Library.
373. MEMOIRS of Captain George Carleton, an English Officer;
including Anecdotes of the War in Spain under the
Earl of Peterborough, and many interesting particulars
relating to the Manners of the Spaniards in the beginning
of the last Century. Written by Himself. Edinburgh :
Printed by James Ballantyne & Co. 1808. Large paper.
8 vo.*
374. THE STATE PAPERS AND LETTERS of Sir Ralph
Sadler, Knight-Banneret.
Edited by Arthur Clifford,
Esq. In Two Volumes. To which is added a Memoir of
the Life of Sir Ralph Sadler, with Historical Notes by
Walter Scott, Esq. Edinburgh : Printed for Archibald
Constable & Co., Edinburgh; and for T. Cadell & W.
Davies, William Millar, and John Murray, London.
1809. 2 Vols. 4to. The same Work on Large paper,
divided into three vols. 4to.*
�WOUTH OCTAGON.
41
375. A COLLECTION of Scarce and Valuable Tracts, on the
most Interesting and Entertaining Subjects; but chiefly
such as relate to the History and Constitution of these
Kingdoms. Selected from an infinite number in Print
and Manuscript, in the Royal, Cotton, Lion, and other
Public as well as Private Libraries; particularly that of
the late Lord Somers. The Second Edition, Revised,
Augmented, and Arranged by Walter Scott, Esq. Thirteen
Volumes. London : Printed for T. Cadell and W. Davies,
Strand; W. Miller, Albemarle Street; R. H. Evans,
Pall Mall; J. White and J. Murray, Fleet Street; and
J. Harding, St. James’s Street. 1809-1815. 4to.
376. THE POETICAL WORKS of Anna Seward; with Ex
tracts from her Literary Correspondence. Edited by
Walter Scott, Esq. In Three Volumes. Efl inburgh :
Printed by James Ballantyne & Co., for John Ballantyne
& Co., Edinburgh; and Longman, Hurst, Rees, and
Orme, Paternoster Row, London. Post 8vo.
Nos. 375 and 376 Lent from the Signet Library.
377. SECRET HISTORY of the Court of James the First;
containing—1. Osborne’s Traditional Memoirs. 2. Sir
Anthony Weldon’s Court and Character of King James.
3. Aulicus Coquinarise. 4. Sir Edward Peyton’s Divine
Catastrophe of the House of Stuarts. With Notes and
Introductory Remarks. In Two Volumes. Edinburgh :
Printed by James Ballantyne & Co., for John Ballantyne
& Co., Edinburgh; and Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, &
Brown, London. 2 Vols. Large paper. Royal 8vo.
Lent by Mr. Gibson Craig.
378. MEMOIRS of the Reign of King Charles the First. By
Sir Philip Warwick, Knight. Edinburgh : Printed by
John Ballantyne & Co., Edinburgh; and Longman, Hurst,
Rees, Orme, & Brown, London. 1813. Large paper.
Royal 8vo.*
379. THE BORDER ANTIQUITIES of England and Scotland,
comprising Specimens of Architecture and Sculpture, and
other Vestiges of Former Ages, accompanied by Descrip
tions. . Together with Illustrations of remarkable Inci
dents in Border History and Tradition, and Original
Poetry. By Walter Scott, Esq. London: Printed for
Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, & Brown, Paternoster Row;
J. Murray, Albemarle Street; John Greig, Upper Street"
Islington; and Constable & Co., Edinburgh. 2 Vols’
Large paper. 4to.*
�42
SOUTH OCTAGON.
380. ILLUSTRATIONS of Northern Antiquities, from the
earlier Teutonic and Scandinavian Romances ; being an
Abstract of the Book of Heroes, and Nibelungen Lay;
with Translation of Metrical Tales from the old German,
Danish, Swedish, and Icelandic languages, with Notes and
Dissertations. By Henry Weber, Robert Jamieson, and
Sir Walter Scott. Edinburgh : Printed by James Ballan
tyne and Co. 1814. 4to.
381. THE WORKS OF JONATHAN SWIFT, D.D., Dean of
St. Patrick’s, Dublin; containing Additional Letters,
Tracts, and Poems, not hitherto published, with Notes,
and a Life of the Author, by Walter Scott, Esq. 19
Volumes. Edinburgh : Printed for Archibald Constable
& Co., Edinburgh; White, Cochrane, & Co., and Gale,
Curtis, & Fenner, London ; and John Cumming, Dublin.
1814. Large paper. Royal 8vo.
Nos. 380 and 381 Lent from the Signet Library.
382. MEMORIE OF THE SOMERVILLES; being a History
of the Baronial House of Somerville, by James Eleventh
Lord Somerville. In Two Volumes. Edinburgh : Printed
by James Ballantyne & Co. for Archibald Constable &
Company, Edinburgh; and Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme,
& Brown, London. 1815. 2 Volumes. Large paper.
Royal 8vo.*
383. THE LETTING of Humours Blood in the Head Vaine,
etc., by S. Rowlands. Edinburgh, Reprinted by James
Ballantyne & Co. for William Laing, and William Black
wood. 1815. Square 12mo. (A Collection of Satires by
a voluminous English writer, Reprinted from the edition
Lond. 1611. With a Preface and Notes, by Sir Walter
Scott.)*
384. DESCRIPTION of the Regalia. Edinburgh.
1819.
12mo.* (Reprinted, with Illustrations, in Provincial
Antiquities, etc., No. 395.)
385. THE SALE-ROOM. No. 1. Saturday, January 4, 1817.
A Periodical Paper, published weekly at No. 4 Hanover
Street, Edinburgh. (No Title.) Carried on to Saturday,
July 12, 1817, when it terminated with No. xxviii. 4to,
pp. 228.*
386. TRIVIAL POEMS, and Triolets. Written in obedience
to Mrs. Tomkin’s Commands. By Patrick Carey. 20th
August 1651. London : John Murray, Albemarle Street.
1820. 4to*
�SOUTH OCTAGON.
43
387. MEMORIALS of the Haliburtons. Edinburgh : Printed
by James Ballantyne & Company, at the Border Press.
1820. Ito, pp. iv. 63.*
Thirty copies only printed for Private Circulation.
The Preliminary Notice is dated Abbotsford, March
1820. Engraved etching of the Haliburton Burial Aisle
in Dryburgh Abbey (from a Drawing by James Skene,
Esq.) On the fly-leaf an inscription, “ For Mr. David
Laing, &c.,” signed Walter Scott.
In the note that accompanied it, he says :—“ I have had the
good fortune to recover the last copy, as I believe, of the Haliburton Memorials, which I enclose for your acceptance. Please to
return the imperfect copy with your convenience. I send also a
copy of Carey’s Poems (rather scarce) which came through my
hands. [See No. 386.] I have since detected the Author, a
Catholic priest and younger brother to the celebrated Lucius Lord
Carey.—Yours truly,
W. Scott.
“Castle Street, Wednesday [January 1823.]”
388. A Reprint of the same Volume. Thirty copies printed.
Edinburgh: November 1824. 4to, on paper slightly
larger than the former.*
389. NORTHERN MEMOIRS, Calculated for the Meridian of
Scotland; to which is added the Contemplative and
Practical Angler. Writ in the year 1658. By Richard
Franck, Philanthropus. New Edition, with Preface and
Notes. Edinburgh: Printed for Archibald Constable &
Co., Edinburgh; and Hurst, Robinson, & Co., London,
1821. 8vo.
This and Nos. 390 and 391 Lent from the Signet Library.
390. CHRONOLOGICAL NOTES of Scottish Affairs from 1680
till 1701 ; being chiefly taken from the Diary of Lord
Fountainhall. Edinburgh: Printed for Archibald Con
stable & Co., Edinburgh; and Hurst, Robinson, & Co.,
London. 4to.
391. MILITARY MEMOIRS of the Great Civil War. Being
the Military Memoirs of John Gwynne; and an Account
of the Earl of Glencairn’s Expedition as General of His
Majesty’s Forces in the Highlands of Scotland, in the
years 1653 and 1654. By a Person who was Eye and
Ear Witness to every Transaction. With an Appendix.
Edinburgh : Printed for Hurst, Robinson, & Co., London;
and Archibald Constable & Co., Edinburgh. 1822. 4to?.
�44
SOUTH OCTAGON.
392. LAYS OF THE LINDSAYS; being Poems by the Ladies
of the House of Balcarras. E dinburgh : Printed by James
Ballantyne & Company. 1824. 4to. Pp. 123.
• This volume was originally designed by Sir Walter
Scott as a contribution to the Members of The Bannatyne
Club ; after the printing had been completed, it was sup
pressed. In a letter to the Secretary of the Club, Sir
Walter writes : “ The Lays of the Lindsays have been
recalled and cancelled, Lady Hardwicke having taken fright
at the idea of appearing in a printed though unpublished
shape. We are, however, to have Auld Robin by himself,
and I wish you would speak to Mr. Lizars about engraving
on my account the enclosed frontispiece, drawn by Mr.
Kirkpatrick Sharpe, and let me know the damage when
you write again.—I am always, Dear Mr. David, yours
assuredly,
« Walter Scott.
“Ajbbotsford, 3cZ October [1824.]”
Lent from the Abbotsford Library.
393. AULD ROBIN GRAY; a Ballad. By the Right Hon
ourable Lady Anne Barnard, born Lady Anne Lindsay of
Balcarras. Edinburgh : Printed by James Ballantyne &
Co. 1825. 4to. Pp. 61, with engraved Frontispiece,
“ C. Kirkpatrick Sharpe, delin. W. H. Lizars, sculpt.”
Presented as a Contribution to the Bannatyne Club,
by Sir Walter Scott, Bart., President of the Club. Lady
Anne Barnard was the eldest daughter of Alexander,
sixth Earl of Balcarras; and married, in 1793, Andrew,
son of Thomas Barnard, Bishop of Limerick. She died
at Loudon in 1825.
Lent by Mr. Wardlaw Ramsay.
See Sir Walter's Letter to the Secretary.
394. THE MANUSCRIPT and Continuation of Auld Robin
Gray, in the Autograph of Lady Anne Barnard : Also an
Original Letter to Miss Cummyng, signed with her
maiden name, Anne Lindsay, from Broomhall (about
1770). *
395. THE PROVINCIAL ANTIQUITIES and Picturesque
Scenery of Scotland, with Descriptive Illustrations. By
Sir Walter Scott. 2 Vols. London, 1826. Large paper.
Imperial 4to. With Proof Impressions and Duplicate.
Etchings of the Plates after Turner and others. Engraved
by Cooke, Finden, Le Keux, etc.
Lent from the Signet Library.
�WOUTH OCTAGON.
45
395*. SEPARATE PARTS of the above Work as published.
Large paper.*
396. VOLUME FIRST of the Minutes of the Bannatyne Club,
founded by Sir Walter Scott in February 1823, signed
by him as President. On a separate leaf is the scroll of
the original Scheme, with Sir Walter’s corrections, and
Scroll of a Minute written by Sir Walter (in the Secre
tary’s absence) regarding the extension of the Club, in
1824.
In the short note to the Secretary (received 9th Novem
ber 1830), he says, “I have no prospect of seeing Edin
burgh for some [time], I am too old a Rat to return
willingly into the Rat-trap. I daresay, however, a
Bannatyne Meeting would tempt me.—Believe [me]
always yours, in all fraternitie,
Walter Scott.”*
397. THE BANNATYNE MISCELLANY; containing Ori
ginal Papers and Tracts, chiefly relating to the History
and Literature of Scotland. Volume I. Printed at
Edinburgh. 1827. 4to. Printed under the joint Super
intendence of the President and Secretary.*
397*. MEMORIALS of George Bannatyne.
1545—1608.
Edinburgh. 1829. 4to. (Printed for the Bannatyne
Club.)*
J 9 8. TRIAL OF DUNCAN TERIG alias CLERK, and Alex
ander Bane Macdonald, for the Murder of Arthur Davis,
Sergeant in General Guize’s Regiment of Foot. June,
a.d. 1754. Edinburgh.
1831. 4to.*
“ This copy of a Trial involving a curious point of
evidence,” was presented, as a Second Contribution, by
Sir Walter Scott, Bart., President of the Bannatyne Club.
398*. TWO BANNATYNE GARLANDS from Abbotsford,
1831. 8vo. Also Sir Walter Scott’s Letter to the
Secretary, sending the transcript, chiefly in his own hand,
of “ Captain Ward and the Rainbow.” *
399. PROCEEDINGS in the Court-Martial held upon John,
Master of Sinclair, Captain-Lieutenant in Preston’s Regi
ment, for the Murder of Ensign Schaw of the same
Regiment, and Captain Schaw of the Royals, 17th
October 1708, with Correspondence respecting that
Transaction. Edinburgh. 1828. 4to.
Dedication :—“ To the Members of the Roxburghe
Club, these Documents, containing the account of a
singular and Tragical occurrence during Marlborough’s
�46
SOUTH OCTAGON.
Wars, from an Original and Authentic Manuscript in the
Editor’s possession, are inscribed and presented by their
most obedient and respectful servant, Walter Scott.
“Abbotsford, 1st December 1828.”
Lent by Sir William Stirling Maxwell, Bart.
400. AN APOLOGY for Tales of Terror.
“ A thing of shreds and patches.”
Kelso: Printed at the Mail Office. 1799. 4to. Pp.
76, with the autograph on the title, “Walter Scott,” and
opposite, this note : “ This was the first book printed
by Ballantyne of Kelso—only twelve copies were thrown
off, and none for sale.”
Lent from the Abbotsford Library.
ADDITIONAL MANUSCRIPTS and LETTERS
written by or hauing reference to Sir Walter
Scott.
401. MANUSCRIPT VOLUME, written by Sir Walter Scott,
under the title of Legendary Fragments, with his sig
nature, “ Walter Scott, 1792.” 4to. 64 leaves, contain
ing probably some original pieces.
Lent from the Abbotsford Library.
402. A Similar Volume, with the title “Scottish Songs.”
It might rather be styled a Poetical Commonplace Book,
being probably the foundation of “ The Border Minstrelsy,”
leaves having apparently been cut out for the printer;
various handwritings occur towards the end of the
volume.
Lent from the Abbotsford Library.
403. COMMISSION, Walter Scott, Gent., to be Quartermaster
in the Royal Edinburgh Volunteers. Signed Ch. Mait
land, Captain Commandant. 12th April 1797.
Lent by Mr. Hope Scott.
404. LETTER to the Right Honble. the Lord Advocate regard
ing Major Maitland, written “ in our official capacity as
Officers and Committee of the Royal Edinburgh Light
Dragoons.” 9th June 1798. Signed, Wm. Rae, Captain
R.E. V.L.D.; J. Gordon, Lieut.; Geor. Robinson, Lieut.;
William Forbes, Cornet; Colin Mackenzie, Member
of Committee; Walter Scott, Secy.*
�SOUTH OCTAGON.
47
(2.) COPY of the above Letter in Sir Walter Scott’s hand
writing, without the signatures. (3.) Letter, Sir Ralph
Abercromby to the Lord Advocate, in reply :—
“ Edinburgh, June 26 th, 1798.—My Lord,—I have the
honor to return herewith a letter addressed to your Lord
ship by the Officers of the Edinburgh Light Dragoons,
recommending to your notice their Commandant, Major
Maitland, to whose merit your Lordship has, as well as
his brother officers, borne ample testimony. It would, on
these reasons, give me much satisfaction, if I could point
out in what manner Major Maitland could be employed
on the North British Staff, but in his present situation it
is incompatible with the rules of the service to give him
any appointment in that line. I am sorry I cannot give
your Lordship a more favourable answer, and have the
honor to be, my Lord, your Lordship’s most humble and
most obedient servant,
(Signed) Ra. Abercr@»Y.”*
405. COMMISSION appointing Mr. Walter Scott, Advocate,
to be Sheriff-Depute of the Shire or Sheriffdom of Selkirk.
Signed by George the Third. Countersigned by the
Duke of Portland, 16th December 179-9.
406. BURGESS TICKET of the Burgh of Selkirk, in favour of
Walter Scott, Esq., Advocate, Sheriff of Selkirkshire.
26th February 1800.
Nos. 405 and 406 lent by Mr. Hope Scott.
407. A TRUE History of several Honourable Families of the
Right Honourable name of Scot, in the Shires of Rox
burgh and Selkirk, and others adjacent. Gathered out
of Ancient Chronicles, Histories, and Traditions of our
Fathers. By
Capt. WALTER SCOT,
An old Souldier, and no Sch oiler,
And one that can Write nane,
But just the Letters of his Name.
Edinburgh : Printed by the heir of Andrew Anderson,
Printer to his most Sacred Majesty, City and Colledge.
1688. 4to.
Presented “to Walter Scott, Esqre., from his obliged
and faithful servant, Archd. Constable. It is the only
copy of the first Edition I have ever seen,
A. C.
“Park Place, 26th March 1818.”
This Work is by no means common, but not so rare as
this note would imply. It was reprinted at Edinburgh,
1776, 4to, and at Hawick, 1786, 8vo; but the interest of
�48
SOUTH OCTAGON.
the present Copy consists in having on the leaf opposite
the title the following lines, written by Sir Walter Scott:—
“ I, Walter Scott of Abbotsford, a poor scholar, no soldier,
but a soldier’s lover,
Tn the stile of my namesake and kinsman, do hereby discover
That I have written the twenty-four letters twenty-four
million times over,
And to every true-born Scott I do wish as many golden pieces
As ever were hairs in Jason’s and Medea’s golden fleeces.”
From the Abbotsford Library.
408. A SET OF PLAYING CARDS, with the Arms of the
Scottish Nobility. Engraved at Edinburgh by Walter
Scott, Goldsmith. Under the Town of Edinburgh Arms
is the engraved title “ Phylarcharum Scotorum Gentilicia
insigna illustria a Gualtero Scot Aurifice Chartis lusorijs.
Expressa, Sculpsit Edinburgi. Anno Dom. cio.io.xci.”
(1691). (A few defects in this Copy were supplied in
facsimile from the one in the Library at Abbotsford.) *
409. LETTER from Sir Walter Scott to Principal Baird,
February 1818, expressing his high opinion of the
Metrical Version of the Psalms used in Scotland.
This and No. 410 Lent by Isaac Bayley, Esq.
410. THE ORIGINAL SCROLL, containing Instructions,
wholly in the hand of Sir Walter Scott, of his
Trust-Disposition and Settlement, dated “Abbotsford,
7th January 1831.” It was found, after his decease, in
his writing-desk, in the Study at Abbotsford. On the
first page, in Sir Walter’s instructions concerning
his funeral, the following words printed in italics are
deleted :—“ The present assignation, having for object :
1. The payment of my debts and funeral expenses, com
mending my body to be laid in my Aisle before the high
altar of Dryburgh Abbey. The funeral to be conducted in the
plainest, without consistent with"------ Mr. Bayley says,
“Before finishing the sentence, Sir Walter may have
recollected that in Scotland testamentary deeds are never
opened until after the Funeral. These instructions were
enclosed in an envelope, with this address:—‘ To my
Children—Rough Notes of Testamentary Dispositions.
The funeral testament, extended and executed, is deposited
in the iron chest of Robert Cadell, Esq., bookseller, in
January 1831.”’
410*. FUNERAL LETTER signed by Major Sir Walter Scott,
to Mr. Mercer, to attend the Funeral of Sir Walter Scott, his
father, to Dryburgh Abbey, on the 26th September 1832.
Lent by Miss Dunlop.
�SOUTH OCTAGON.
49
MISCELLANEOUS.
411. STUDY AT ABBOTSFORD. Sketch in Water-colour.
By Sir William Allan, P.R.S.A.
Lent by David Simson, Esq.
412. SCENE from “Waverley.” By John Faed, R.S.A.
This and No. 413 Lent by Messrs. A. and C. Black.
413. SCENE from “The Abbot.”
H.R.S.A.
By Thomas Faed, R.A.,
414. VIEW of Abbotsford. By J. F. Williams, R.S.A.
Lent by Mrs. Margaret Sanson.
415. PORTRAIT of Daniel Terry, Comedian.
Nicholson, R.S.A.
Lent by Mr. Adam Black.
By Wm.
416. SCENE from “ Waverley.” By J. Faed, R.S.A.
This and the next three numbers Lent by Messrs. A.
and C. Black.
417. SCENE from “ Rob Roy.”
By R. R. MTan, A.R.S.A.
418. SCENE from “ Guy Mannering.”
By John Faed, R.S.A.
419. SCENE from “The Heart of Midlothian.”
Faed, R.A., TLR.S.A.
By Thomas
420. OLD MORTALITY. The Original Vignette Drawing.
By Sir William Allan, P.R.S.A.
Lent by Mr. D. Laing.
421. DRAWING of the Lennox or Darnley Jewel, in Gold and
Colours. The old description of this interesting Relic is
as follows :—“ A Golden Heart set with Jewels and orna
mented with emblematical figures enamelled, and Scottish
mottoes.” Mr. Fraser Tytler prepared, by her Majesty’s
command, an elaborate description of the various emblems
and mottoes, clearly showing that this curious and ancient
Jewel contains internal evidence that it was made for
Margaret Countess of Lennox in memory of her husband
the Regent, as a present to her Royal Grandson James
VI. of Scotland.
Lent by Mr. Gibson Craig.
D
�50
SOUTH OCTAGON.
422. LETTER, dated 2 2d Nov. 1799, from Sir Walter Scott to
Wm. Riddell, Esq. of Comieston, soliciting his interest
when applying for the Sheriffship of Selkirk.
Lent by Mr. Riddell Carre of Cavers Carre.
423. LETTER from Sir Walter Scott to the late William
Stewart Watson, approving of the Likenesses painted by
him in 1825.
Lent by Mrs. Stewart Watson.
424. LETTER or Notes by Sir Walter Scott in connexion with
the Traditions of Edinburgh by the late Robert Chambers.
Lent by Mr. James Hay, Leith.
425. LETTER from Sir Walter Scott to Mr. Charles Mackay,
describing his Visit to the Theatre-Royal, Edinburgh, to
witness the play of “ Rob Roy,” and the representation of
the character of Bailie Nicol Jarvie by him.
Lent by Mr. C. G. Mackay.
426. LETTER from Sir Walter Scott to John Scott, Esq. of
Scalloway.
Lent by Mr. R. T. C. Scott, J.P.
427. MEMOIRS of his Dog “ Camp,” by Sir Walter Scott, in
his own handwriting.
Lent by Mr. T. G. Stevenson.
428. LETTER of Thanks from Sir Walter Scott to the late
Peter Maclaurin, Esq.
Lent by Mrs. Maclaurin.
429. LETTER, and Sketch of Tankard. By Sir Walter Scott,
to Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, Esq.
Lent by the Rev. W. K. R. Bedford.
430. VOLUME of Notes and Letters from Sir Walter Scott,
&e., to Mr. John Stevenson, Bookseller, Edinburgh, with
Printed Papers, in one vol. 4to.
Lent by Mr. T. G. Stevenson.
431. VOLUME of Sixty-five Original Letters, chiefly Private, on
Matters of Business, etc., addressed to Mr. James Ballan
tyne, from 1808 to 1831.
Lent by Mr. Christopher Douglas.
�SOUTH OCTAGON.
51
432. PREFATORY Memoirs to Lives of the Novelists; Sterne,
Goldsmith, Johnson. The Original Manuscript.
Lent by Mr. Christopher Douglas.
432*. PREFATORY Memoir of Moliere. 26 pages. The
ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT. Also Letter of Sir Walter
Scott, written before 1820, apparently to Mr. Lockhart,
alluding to his purchase of Abbotsford; and other five
Autograph Letters to R. P. Gillies, respecting the “ Foreign
Quarterly Review,” 1826-1828.
Lent by Mr. Henry G. Bohn.
433. THE EVE OF ST. JOHN, the Original Manuscript.
Written by Lady Scott and presented by her to Captain
Scott of Rosebank. 12mo.
Lent by Miss Meik.
434. CALL BOOK at Holyrood Palace (with numerous Original
Signatures), during the Visit of His Majesty George the
Fourth, in August 1822. Folio.
This and the next No. Lent by Mr. Laing.
434*. A DEED, written on Parchment, by the Tutors of Mary
Countess of Buccleuch, with the Signatures of Sir John
Scott of Scotstarvet, dated at Edinburgh, 15th August
1656, and the other Tutors of the chief families of Scott.
The Countess died in 1661, aged 13.
435. VISITORS’ BOOK from Dryburgh for the years 1821-35.
Lent by Mr. John T. Rose.
436. STATUETTE of Sir Walter Scott, from Mr. Steell’s
Statue in the Monument.
Lent by the Royal Association for the Promotion of the
Fine Arts.
437. A SMALL BUST in Parian.
Lent by Mr. John T. Rose.
438. MASK of Sir Walter Scott, after Death. Taken by John
Steell, R.S.A.
Lent by James R. Hope Scott, Esq.
439. THE BANNATYNE CLUB TESTIMONIAL.
The
portion exhibited consists of three emblematical figures
of History, Poetry, and Music, surmounted by a Statuette
�52
SOUTH OCTAGON.
of Sir Walter Scott, the Founder of the Club. [See
No. 396.] Designed and Modelled by Peter Slater,
Sculptor.
Presented to Mr. Laing in 1861, “in grateful acknow
ledgment of his services as Honorary Secretary since the
Institution of the Club in 1823.”
Lent by David Laing, Esq.
440. GEORGE HERIOT’S “Loving Cup.”
Lent by the Governors of George Heriot’s Hospital.
441. LOCKET of Sir Walter Scott’s Hair, presented by Sir
Adam Ferguson to a friend.
Lent by Mr. Thomas Johnston.
442. SIR WALTER SCOTT’S SNUFF-BOX.
Sir Adam Ferguson. 1818.
Lent by Mr. W. Chambers.
Presented to
443. SILVER FRUIT-KNIFE and Ivory Six-inch Rule. Pre
sented by Sir Walter Scott to R. T. C. Scott of Melby,
Shetland, on the 7th August 1814. See Lockhart’s “Life,”
Vol. III. pp. 160, 161.
Lent by Mr. R. T. C. Scott.
444. KEY OF LOCHLEVEN CASTLE. Presented by Sir
Walter Scott to Lord Chief Commissioner Adam. (See
Blair-Adam Tracts, No. I.)
Lent by William Patrick Adam, Esq., M.P.
444*. ANTIQUE KEY OF BRASS, or some Yellow Metal, in
scribed on bowl Marie Rex, and on wards 1565. Found
in Loch Leven ; and supposed to be a Chamberlain’s Key
or Badge of Office.
Lent by Lady Elizabeth-Jane Leslie-Melville Cartwright.
445. BRIDLE-BIT found in a Vault of the Hermitage Castle,
along with some Remnants of Ancient Armour and
several Human Bones. The Vault was that in which Sir
Alexander Ramsay of Dalhousie was starved to death
by order of William Douglas, called the Knight of Liddesdale. “The Bit was presented to me by Mr. Elliot,
Tenant in Millburnhall.—W. S. October 1795.”—Given
by Sir Walter Scott to George, ninth Earl of Dalhousie.
Lent by the Earl of Dalhousie.
�SOUTH OCTAGON.
53
446. (1.) SILVER SNUFF-BOX, in constant use by Sir Walter
Scott; (2.) Gold Watch which belonged to Lady Scott,
presented to Dr. Clarkson by Sir Walter’s Son, in acknow
ledgment of his long services, and the friendship enter
tained for him by the family.
Lent by Dr. Clarkson.
447. MEDAL, Sir Walter Scott.
Lent by Mr. Macdonald, Roseville, Eskbank.
448. MEG DODS’ PUNCH-BOWL.
Lent by Mr. Walker, Peebles.
449. LOCKET, with Photograph and Hair of Sir Walter Scott.
Lent by Miss Campbell Swinton.
450. BOX WITH STEEL AND FLINT.
Lent by Mr. Nicholson.
451. SIR WALTER SCOTT’S PIPE.
Lent by Mr. James Douglas.
452. BABY-CLOTHES BASKET used for Sir Walter Scott
in his Infancy.
Lent by the Misses Aytoun.
45 3. PEDIGREE of the Scott Family. Drawn up and written
by Sir Walter in his own hand.
Lent by the Right Hon. Lord Polwarth.
454. IMPRESSIONS of Medals and Seals of Scott.
Exhibited by Mr. H. Laing, Elder Street.
455. THORN WALKING-STICK cut by Sir Walter Scott at
Abbotsford in 1830 and given by him to John Leycester
Adolphus, Author of Letters on the Authorship of
Waverley.
Lent by Mrs. Adolphus.
456. SIR WALTER SCOTT’S Walking-Stick, given by him
to William Laidlaw, and by Mr. Laidlaw to Dr. Charles
Mackay.
Lent by Dr. Charles Mackay.
457. MEDALLION OF SCOTT. Hennings, fed.
Exhibited by Mr. H. Laing.
458. BRONZE MEDALS, Sir Walter Scott, by Stothard after
Chantrey.
Lent by Sir J. Noel Paton, R.S.A., and A. Campbell
Swinton, Esq.
459. GOLD WATCH and Chain, and Silver Neck Chain, worn
by Sir Walter Scott.
Lent by Mr. Alexander Nicholson.
�54
ENTRANCE HALL.
460. LEAF from an Old Family Bible, written by Sir Walter
Scott at the request of his cousin, Mrs. Meik, formerly
Barbara Scott.
This and No. 461 Lent by Mr. Thomas Meik, C.E.
461. LETTER from Sir Walter Scott to his cousin, Mrs. Meik,
on her eldest Son leaving for India.
463. PENCIL-CASE and Pencil which belonged to Sir Walter
Scott, and presented by him to the late Sir John Watson
Gordon, with Letter from H. G. Watson, Esq., to James
Simson, Esq., M.D.
Lent by Dr. Simson.
464. DRESS in which Sir Walter Scott received His Majesty
George IV.
Lent by Mr. Alexander Nicholson.
ENTRANCE HALL.
BUSTS, TAPESTRY, ARMOUR, etc.
465. BUST IN MARBLE OF SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart.
By Samuel Joseph, R.S.A.
Lent by Mrs. Callander, Prestonhall.
466. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Bust in Plaster, the first
of forty Casts made under the superintendence of the
Sculptor. By Sir Francis Chantrey, R.A.
Lent by Allan A. Maconochie Wellwood, Esq.
467. COPY IN PLASTER of the Statue of Sir Walter Scott
by Green shields. By Leopoldo Arrighi.
468. BUST OF GEORGE KEMP, Architect, modelled from the
life by the late Alex. Handyside Ritchie, A.R.S.A., and
carved in Marble by John Hutchison, R.S.A., and by him
presented to the Trustees of the Scott Monument, to be
placed in the Museum there.
Lent by John Hutchison, Esq.
469. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Bust in Marble. By
Lawrence MacDonald, at Rome, 1831.
Lent by W. Cross, Esq.
470. STATUETTE IN MARBLE, from the Original Statue in
the Scott Monument. By John Steell, R.S.A., Sculptor
to Her Majesty.
Lent by James Hay, Esq.
�ENTRANCE HALL.
55
471. JEANIE DEANS. Original Model by Wm. Brodie,R.S.A.
Lent by Wm. Brodie, Esq.
472. SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Bust in Bronze. Executed for Mr. Cadell by Sir Francis Chantrey, R.A.
Lent by the Rev. R. H. Stevenson.
473. STATUETTE of Diana Vernon.
By George E. Lawson.
474. DOMINIE SAMPSON—“Prodigious!” By George E.
Lawson.
Nos. 473 and 474 Lent by Mr. G. E. Lawson.
475. TAPESTRY. “ Hunting Scene.”
This and Nos. 476, 477, and 478 Lent by the Right
Hon. the Earl of Breadalbane.
476. TAPESTRY.
“ Hunting Scene.”
477. TAPESTRY.
Subject: “Neptune and Amphitrite.”
478. TAPESTRY.
“ The Forge of Vulcan.”
479. TAPESTRY. “Flora and Attendants.”
Lent by Messrs. Bonnar & Carfrae, 77 George Street.
480. TAPESTRY. “ Apollo and the Muses.”
This and the next two Numbers Lent by the Right
Hon. the Earl of Breadalbane.
481. TAPESTRY.
“Hunting Scene.”
482. TAPESTRY.
“ Apollo.”
The above fine Specimens of Tapestry were obtained for the use of
the Committee by Messrs. Bonnar and Carfrae.
483. COPY written by George Kemp of the Advertisement for
Designs for the Scott Monument; and Letter from Sir
Thomas Dick Lauder in reference to his first Design.
Lent by Mrs. Kemp.
484. “ THE FIRST IDEA,” sent by George Kemp, signed
“John Morvo.”
Lent by Mr. James Ballantine.
484*. DRAWING of the Scott Monument, by George Kemp.
(In North Octagon.)
Lent by Dr Paterson.
�56
ENTRANCE HALL.
485. DRAWING of The Scott Monument.
By George Kemp.
*** Mr. Kemp’s Original Competition Drawing for the Monument!
as first proposed to be erected in the centre of Charlotte Square.
This Drawing has been acquired by the Trustees of the Scott
Monument, to form part of “The Scott Museum,” after the
present Exhibition is closed. The room at present is fitting
up at the expense of the “ Trustees of the Monument.”
486. MODEL of Scott Monument. By George Kemp.
Lent by Thomas Archer, Esq., Director of Museum of
Science and Art.
487. SIR WALTER SCOTT’S STUDY CHAIR.
Lent by the Council of the Society of Antiquaries.
488. THREE SUITS of Armour from the Collection of Sir J.
Noel Paton, R.S.A.
489. SUIT OF ARMOUR.
Lent by Mr. H. G. Watson.
490. THE BOURBON SHIELD.
Lent by Mr. William MacDonald.
491. THE STOCK AN’ HORN.
“ He tuned his pipe and reed sae sweet,
The burds stood listening by;
E’en the dull cattle stood and gazed,
Charmed wi’ his melody.”
The Broom o' the Cowderiknowes.
This and Nos. 492 and 493 Lent by Mr. James
Drummond, R.S.A.
492. TROPHY of Target, Basket Hilts, and other Highland
Weapons.
493. TROPHY of Swords, Rapiers, Crossbows, and other
Weapons, with an Iron Mask.
494. PORTRAIT OF SIR WALTER SCOTT, Bart. Painted
for the Speculative Society by Sir John Watson Gordon,
P.R.S.A., R.A.
Lent by the Society.
495. CAPTAIN BASIL HALL, R.N. A Bust in Marble.
Samuel Joseph, Sculptor.
Lent by Sir William Stirling-Maxwell, Bart.
By
496. BAGPIPES, formerly the Property of Sir Walter Scott,
and used by his Piper.
Lent by James Wolfe Murray, Esq. of Cringletie.
�57
ARTICLES omitted in the earlier impressions of the
Catalogue, or receiued for Exhibition subse
quently to their issue.
llO.f SIR WALTER SCOTT. Portrait painted by John
Watson (Gordon) in 1820, for the late Marchioness of
Abercorn, who was the Aunt of Lady Napier, whereby
the present Lord Napier now possesses the picture.
Lent by the Dowager Lady Napier.
The following extracts are from two unpublished letters
addressed by Sir Walter Scott to Lady Abercorn:
“ Edinburgh, 1s£ July 1820.
“ The Portrait is advancing, by the pencil of a clever
Artist, and will, I think, be a likeness, and a tolerably
good picture. I hope to get it sent up before I leave
town, at anyrate I will have it finished so far as sittings
are concerned. If I look a little sleepy your kindness
must excuse it, as I had to make my attendance on the
Man of colours betwixt six and seven in the morning.”
“Abbotsford, 2d August 1820.
“ The dog which I am represented as holding in my
arms is a Highland terrier from Kintail, of a breed very
sensible, very faithful, and very ill-natured. • It some
times tires, or pretends to do so, when I am on horse
back, and whines to be taken up, where it sits before me
like a child without any assistance. I have a very large
wolf-greyhound, I think the finest dog I ever saw, but he
has sate, to so many artists that whenever he sees brushes
and a palette, he gets up and leaves the room, being
sufficiently tired of the constraint.”
167ff. PORTRAIT of Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Scott, the
second Baronet of Abbotsford, painted by Colvin Smith,
R.S.A., from a Miniature.
Lent by Lady Scott.
16 8f. WALTER SCOTT, a small Miniature done at Bath,
when he was in the fifth or sixth year of his age. It was
given by his mother to a lady, a relation, in whose family
it remained till lately, for at least seventy years.
A similar Miniature, preserved at Abbotsford, was pre
sented by Sir Walter Scott to his daughter, Mrs. Lockhart;
and has been engraved.
Lent by David Laing, Esq.
�58
290*. ENGRAVED PORTRAIT, from the Picture by Sir
Thomas Lawrence at Windsor. (See No. 147.) Proof
Impression. Published by Virtue & Co., originally in the
“Art Journal.”
From Messrs. Virtue & Co.
307-J-. THE ETTRICKE GARLAND, being two excelled
New Songs on the lifting of the Banner of the House of
Buccleugh, Dec. 4, 1815. Edinburgh, 1815. Royal 8vo.
Four leaves.*
356*. ILLUSTRATIONS of Sir Walter Scott’s Lay of the Last
Minstrel, consisting of Twelve Views on the Rivers
Borthwick, Ettrick, Yarrow, Teviot, and Tweed. Engraved
by J. Heath, R.A., from designs taken on the spot by
John C. Schetky of Oxford. With Anecdotes and De
scriptions. London : Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees'
& Orme, Paternoster Row. 1810. Royal 8vo.*
35 6f. GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS to Sir Walter Scott’s
Works. Scenes described in the Novels and Tales, from
Drawings by A. Nasmyth, engraved by Lizars. (Waverley
to Rob Roy.) Edinburgh, 1821. 16 Plates. 8vo.*
356**. LANDSCAPE ILLUSTRATIONS of the Waverley
Novels, with Descriptions of the Views. 2 Vols. (Vol. I.
Waverley to Legend of Montrose. Vol. II. Ivanhoe to
Woodstock.) London: Charles Tilt, Fleet Street. 1832.
Royal 8vo.*
35 7f. THE BOOK OF WAVERLEY GEMS : in a Series of
Engraved Illustrations of incidents and scenery in Sir
Walter Scott’s Novels. Engravings by Heath, Finden,
Rolls, etc., after pictures by Leslie, Stothard, Cooper,
Howard, etc., with illustrative letterpress. London, 1862.
8vo.
From Henry G. Bohn, Esq., London.
369*. LETTER of Sir Walter Scott, addressed “Dr. Leyden,
Calcutta.”
It begins:—“Your letter of the 10th January 1810
reached me about ten days since, and was most truly wel
come, as containing an assurance of that which, however, I
never doubted—the continuation of your unabated and
affectionate remembrance. I assure you, Charlotte and I
think and speak of you very often, with all the warmth
due to the recollection of our early days, when life and
hope were young with all of us. You have, I hope, long
ere now, received my third poem, ‘ The Lady of the
Lake,’ which I think you will like for Auld Lang Syne, if
not for its intrinsic merit. It have [has] been more suo
�59
cessful than its predecessors, for no less than 25,000
copies have disappeared in eight months ; and the demand
is so far from being abated, that another edition of
3000 is now at press. I send you a copy of the quarto
by a son of Mr. Pringle of Whytbank; and his third son
William Pringle, being now on the same voyage to your
shores, I beg to introduce him,” etc. ... “I expect
this boy to call every moment, so I must close my letter.
Mrs. Scott joins in sending you all the wishes of affec
tionate friendship. Pray take care of your health, and
come home to us soon. We will find an ingleside and
a corner of our hearts as warm for you as ever. My chil
dren are all well; and now I hear the door-bell, vale et
nos ama,
Walter Scott.”
“Edinburgh, 2Qth February 1811.”
V This letter could not have reached its destination,
Dr. John Leyden having sailed from Calcutta with the
expedition against Java in March 1811, where he died of
fever in August following.
Lent by Mrs. W. A Pringle, Portobello. Also,
369**. NOTE to his “ dear young friend,” the late William A.
Pringle, Esq., of the Civil Service, India, in connexion
with the above letter.
409. LETTER, Sir Walter Scott to the Rev. Dr. Baird, Prin
cipal of the University of Edinburgh, and Convener of
the General Assembly’s Committee on Psalmody, expressing his high opinion of the Metrical Version of the
Psalms still used in the Presbyterian Churches in this
country. (February 1818.)
Lent by Isaac Bayley, Esq.
431f. THE HISTORY OF THE BALLANTYNE PRESS, and
its connection with Sir Walter Scott. Edinburgh : Bal
lantyne & Co. 1871. 4to.
From Messrs. Ballantyne & Co.
438. MASK of Sir Walter Scott, after Death. (A Cast in
Bronze by John Steell, R.S.A, of this Mask, is exhibited
at Abbotsford.)
Lent by James R. Hope Scott, Esq.
434*®. BOND signed by John Scott of Sintoun, William Scott
of Raeburne, and John Scott of Ronaldburn, at Edin
burgh, 4th and 7th December 1686.*
457*. SILVER PRIZE MEDAL, presented by Sheriff Trotter
in 1843 to the Dux of the Dumfries Grammar School.
A head of Sir Walter Scott, in profile, is chased upon it
Lent by John Blacklock, Esq.
�No. 122. KEY TO SIR WALTER SCOTT AND HIS FRIENDS AT ABBOTSFORD.
�LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS.
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, 100, 14", 178t, 296.
Antiquaries, The Society of, Royal Institution, 487.
Alexander, Colonel Sir James E., Westerton, Bridge of Allan, 33.
'
Adam, William Patrick, Esq. of Blairadam, M.P., 10, 144, 444.
Adolphus, Mrs., 23a Connaught Square, London, W., 67, 178*, 455.
Atchison, Thos. S., Esq., 74 George Street, 132.
Anderson, David B., Esq., W.S., 8 Regent Terrace, 68.
Archer, Thomas, Esq., Director of the Museum of Science and Art, 486.
Armstrong, George, Esq., Alnwick, 90.
Arrighi, Leopoldo, Yew Tree House, Meadow Place, 467.
Aytoun, The Misses, 28 Inverleith Row, 452.
Buccleuch and Queen sberry, his Grace The Duke of, K.G., Dalkeith
Palace, 150.
Bread at.ranf., The Right Hon. Earl of, Taymouth Castle, 118, 124, 475
to 478 inch, 480, 481, 482.
Ballantine, James, Esq., 42 George Street, 34, 39, 89, 182, 484.
Ballantyne, John, Esq., R.S.A, Totteridge, Herts, 42.
Ballantyne, R. M., Esq., 6 Millerfield Place, 24.
Bayley, Isaac, Esq., S.S.C., 13 Regent Terrace, 409, 410.
Bedford, Rev. W. K. R., Sutton Coldfield, Warwickshire, 429.
Black, Adam, Esq. of Priorbank, 415.
Black, Messrs. A & C., Publishers, Edinburgh, 317, 368, 412, 413, 416
to 419 incL
Blackwood, John, Esq., 45 George Street, I*, 18, 29, 30, 167*.
Blaikey, James, Esq., 135 Buchanan Street, Glasgow, 126.
Blathwayt, Rev. Raymond, Chaplain H.M. Prison, Worthing, Surrey, 38.
Bohn, Henry G., Esq., Northend House, Twickenham, 172, 432*.
Bonnar, Thomas, Esq., 137 Princes Street, 4, 8, 71, 77, 131.
Bonnar & Carfrae, Messrs., 77 George Street, 479.
Brodie, William, Esq., R.S.A, Cambridge Street, 471.
Bruce, Daniel, Esq., 42 George Street, 129, 281.
Bryce, David, Esq., R.S.A, 131 George Street, 106.
Butti, James A, Esq., 7 Queen Street, 127.
Cartwright, Lady Elizabeth-Jane Leslie-Melville, Melville House, Lady
bank, 111*, 444*.
Clinton, the Right Hon. Lord, Trefusis Castle, Ealmouth, Cornwall, 42*.
Colquhoun, Lady, Strathgarry, Pitlochrie, 113.
Callander, Mrs. Burn, of Prestonhall, 465.
Carfrae, Robert, Esq., 77 George Street, 111.
Carre, W. Riddell, Esq. of Cavers Carre, New Club, 280, 285, 422.
Chambers, William, Esq., Glenormiston, 442.
E
�58
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS.
Clark, James, Esq., Clackmannan, 45.
Clark, W. D., Esq., 67 Princes Street, 65, 82.
Clarkson, Dr., Avenel, Colinton Road, 446.
Cockburn, A. D., Esq., 6 Athol Crescent, 176.
Constable, Thomas, Esq., 11 Thistle Street, 23.
Corsar, David, Esq., Arbroath, 1.
Cowan, John, Esq., Beeslack, Penicuik, 325.
Craig, J. T. Gibson, Esq., 24 York Place, 37, 80, 84, 86, 92, 114, 133,
136, 152, 177, 209, 293, 300, 377, 421.
Cross, W., Esq., 22 Gayfield Square, 469.
Dalhousie, the Right Hon. the Earl of, K.T., Brechin Castle, 112, 445.
Dennistoun, Alexander, Esq., Rosslea, Helensburgh, 9, 102, 122.
Dick, Mrs., 42 George Street, 50.
Douglas, Christopher, Esq., W.S., 13 Athol Crescent, 334, 431, 432.
Douglas, James, Esq., Banker, Kelso, 451.
Douglas, Miss, 4 Cumin Place, 360.
Drummond, James, Esq., R.S.A., 8 Royal Crescent, 14, 46, 58, 69, 73,
108, 178, 183, 211 to 256 incl., 282, 491, 492, 493.
Dunlop, Miss, 27 Brunswick Street, Stockbridge, 410®.
Ebseine, William C. C., Esq., Kinnedder, Fifeshire, 173, 175, 301, 303.
Foulis, The Dowager Lady Liston, 8 Newbattle Terrace, 156, 340.
Farquharson, F., Esq. of Finzean, 5 Eton Terrace, 107.
Ferguson, Mrs., 2 Eton Terrace, 155.
Finlayson, Mrs., 6 Union Place, 7.
Fraser, P. A., Esq., LT.R.S.A., Hospitalfield, Arbroath, 27, 32.
Fraser, Mrs. P. A., Hospitalfield, Arbroath, 25.
Gallery, Trustees of the National, of Scotland, 88, 94, 95.
Glasgow, The Corporation of, 83.
Gillespie, J. D., Esq., M.D., 10 Walker Street, 79, 101, 116, 346.
Glover, Mrs. Edmond, 11 Burnbank Terrace, Glasgow, 11.
Graves, Henry, Pall Mall, London, 289.
Green, William E., Esq., 39 Paternoster Row, London, 149.
Home, The Right Hon. The Earl of, The Hirsel, Coldstream, 146.
Heriot’s Hospital, The Governors of, 135, 440.
Hall, Sir James, of Dunglass, Bart., 335.
Haldane, Dr. Rutherford, 22 Charlotte Square, 167, 358.
Hay, James, Esq., Leith, 424, 470.
Hay, Robert, Esq., Nunraw, by Haddington, 178**.
Hill, The Trustees of the late Alexander, Esq., 12 St. Andrew Square, 20,
105.
Hill, T. A., Esq., 12 St. Andrew Square, 115.
Hogarth, George, Esq., Banker, Cupar Fife, 354.
Home, David Milne, Esq. of Wedderburn, 10 York Place, 297.
Horn, Robert, Esq., Advocate, 7 Randolph Crescent, 154, 357.
Hume, M. N. Macdonald, Esq., 15 Abercromby Place, 119, 125.
Hutchison, John, Esq., R.S.A., 97 George Street, 468.
�LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS.
59
Hutton, Archibald, Esq., 1 East Register Street, 287.
Inglis, John, Esq. of Redhall, 120.
James, Miss, 39 Harewood Square, London, 142.
Johnston, Thomas, 27 St. John’s Hill, 441.
Knighton, SirW. W., Bart., 1 Lowndes Street, London, 139, 145.
Kemp, Mrs., Portobello, 483.
Laing, David, Esq., Signet Library, 49, 85, 130, 137, 257 to 267 incl.,
283, 294, 315, 315*, 316, 318, 336, 336*, 343, 356, 359, 359*, 361,
363, 367, 369, 370, 373, 374, 378, 379, 382 to 388 incl., 394, 395*
to 398* incl., 404, 408, 420, 434, 434*, 439.
Laing, Henry, Elder Street, 454, 457.
Lawson, George A., Esq., Sculptor, Gloucester Road, Regent’s Park,
London, 473, 474.
Maxwell, Sir William Stirling, of Keir and Pollok, Bart., 10 Upper
Grosvenor Street, London, W., 91, 93, 98, 103, 164, 166, 189 to 208
incl., 290, 399, 495.
Manchester, His Honour the Mayor of, 104.
MacDonald, William, Esq., Roseville, Eskbank, Dalkeith, 47, 48, 51, 52,
55, 56*, 60, 61, 63, 64, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 170, 181, 447, 490.
Mackay, C. G., Esq., 17 Lutton Place, 425.
Mackay, Dr. Charles, 42 George Street, 456.
Mackay, Mrs., 17 Lutton Place, 17.
Maclagan, Professor, 28 Heriot Row, Edinburgh, 45**.
Maclaurin, Mrs., 9 Randolph Cliff, 428.
MacLeay, Kenneth, Esq., R.S.A., 3 Malta Terrace, 54, 56, 66.
Meik, Miss, 22 Greenhill Gardens, 433.
Meik, Thomas, C.E., 7 Newbattle Terrace, 460, 461.
Melville, Mrs., 8 Newbattle Terrace, 134.
Mercer, Robert, Esq. of Scotsbank, Ramsay Lodge, Portobello, 26, 87, 96.
Murray, James Wolfe, Esq. of Cringletie, 496.
Murray, John, Esq., 50 Albemarle Street, London, W., 151,162, 165, 300*.
Muspratt, James, Esq., Seaforth Hall, Seaforth, Liverpool, 110.
National Portrait Gallery, London, 153.
Napier, Mark, Esq., Advocate, 6 Ainslie Place, 331.
Nicholson, Mr. Alexander, Kelso, 450, 459, 464.
Nicholson, Mrs., 6 Henderson Row, 168.
Orr, Sir Andrew, of Harviestoun and Castle Campbell, Harviestoun Castle
by Dollar, 28.
Polwarth, Right Hon. Lord, Mertoun House, St. Boswells, 453.
Paton, Sir J. Noel, R.S.A., 33 George Square, 458, 488.
Paterson, Dr. A., Bridge of Allan, 484*.
Paterson, Mr. William, 23 Hope Terrace, 57, 320, 321, 323, 326, 328, 329,
348.
Peat, Mrs. Cumine, Welnage, Dunse, 41.
Royal Association for the Promotion of the Fine Arts in Scotland, 94,
179, 180, 184 to 188 incl., 436.
�60
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS.
Royal Society, The, Edinburgh, 158.
Ruthven, Right Hon. the Dowager Lady, Winton Castle, Tranent, 140.
Raeburn, John P., Esq., Charlesfield, Midcalder, 160.
Ramsay, R. B. Wardlaw, Esq. of Whitehill, etc., Lasswade, 21, 123, 393.
Renny, J., Esq., 22 Picardy Place, 13.
Richardson, Francis, Esq., Mickleham, Surrey, 302, 323*, 349*, 355.
Robertson, Robert, Esq., 5 South Lauder Road, Grange, 40*.
Rose, John T., Esq., 11 Duncan Street, 268 to 279 incl., 435, 437.
Scott, J. R. Hope, Esq. of Abbotsford, Melrose, 171, 174, 295, 299, 304,
306, 322, 362, 392, 400 to 403 incl., 405 to 407 incl., 438.
Strathmore, The Right Hon. The Earl of, 20 Rutland Gate, London,
S.W., 109.
Signet Library, 298, 302*, 305, 307 to 313 incl., 319, 324, 327 to 330
incl., 333, 337, 338, 339, 341, 344, 345, 347, 349, 350 to 353, 355*,
371, 372, 375, 376, 380, 381, 389 to 391, 395.
Speculative Society, The, 365, 366, 494.
Sale, W. F., Esq., Irwell Bank, Kersal, Manchester, 117.
Sanson, Mrs. Margaret, 24 Minto Street, 45*, 81, 117*, 414.
Scott, R. T. C., Esq., J.P., Melby, Shetland, 426, 443.
Shand, A. B., Esq., Advocate, 3 Great Stuart Street, 121.
Simpson, George B., Esq., Seafield, Broughty-Ferry, 16, 35, 44, 99, 128.
Simson, David, Esq., 25 India Street, 411.
Simson, James, M.D., 3 Glenfinlas Street, 463.
Skene, A., Esq., 22 Regent Quay, Aberdeen, 342.
Smith, Colvin, Esq., R.S.A., 32 York Place, 12, 31, 157.
Smith, Dr. John A., 7 West Maitland Street, 210, 288.
Smith, Mrs., Frederick Street, 53, 62, 75.
Spence, A. Blair, Esq., Dundee, 2.
Stevenson, Mr. T. George, 22 Frederick Street, 6, 284, 427, 430.
Stevenson, Rev. Robert H., 9 Oxford Terrace, 22, 332, 472.
Stirling, Gilbert, Esq. of Larbert House, Royal Horse Guards, London, 43.
Swinton, Archibald Campbell, Esq., Kimmerghame, Dunse, 59, 286, 291,
292, 314, 314*, 364, 458.
Swinton, Miss, Kimmerghame, Dunse, 449.
Thomson, Lockhart, Esq., S.S.C., 10 Coates Crescent, 36.
Walker, Mr., Peebles, 448.
Watson, Wm. Smellie, Esq., R.S.A., 10 Forth Street, 19.
Watson, Henry G., Esq., 123 George Street, 5, 97, 148, 161, 489.
Watson, Mrs. Stewart, 56 Queen Street, 138, 423.
Wells, William, Esq., M.P., 22 Bruton Street, London, W., 143.
Wellwood, A. A. Maconochie, Esq.,Meadow Bank House, Kirknewton, 466.
White, John, Esq., Netherurd, Peebles, 3, 40.
White, William Logan, Esq., Kellerstain, Hermiston, 159.
Williams, T., Esq., Elmtree Road, London, 141.
Williamson, John, Esq., The Deans, South Shields, 15.
Young, James, Esq. of Kelly, 169.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Catalogue of the loan exhibition in commemoration of Sir Walter Scott at Edinburgh in the galleries of the Royal Scottish Academy, National Gallery, in July and August 1871
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Edinburgh
Collation: 60 p. : ill. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas and Archibald Constable
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5566
Subject
The topic of the resource
Exhibitions
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Catalogue of the loan exhibition in commemoration of Sir Walter Scott at Edinburgh in the galleries of the Royal Scottish Academy, National Gallery, in July and August 1871), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Exhibitions
Fiction in English
Walter Scott
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/632f60a4af847944dfe5e57feed99334.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=RZNSDcS3LxwFRjVv%7EHysWaWtNY0LnbZOeLm-cgj8KhHi5%7EumR%7Eg7gyx7IkfXhFb4hYyi-5VOnY4F1q71cttLnCduMHHH5J2D57QWKXqFthUOPegMPoG0BYQAL3JY6ZMY4kh5mPz6aYLAmznQ2oP0cOlnjcBIAD5CrEV%7EjreTPbN8ibf7CzMQPtk9zbDxYaUUyoFPc1XlnS0fPAqzpynOd2uTfD0T9ERY4fw43eN-MuhtHZQm3k-RTOOsJGt5Oem6EpA8W9%7EibJ6GT8DhASScKX45RBoPIEt%7EicCtLVLaRlNI3TneqyZNz2f7lkpwt7Ik8XLjaBqnZCWFnwFMcBwO7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9f86c8d4cfdbb0fc4a446e5852c62cd5
PDF Text
Text
Why should Charles Voysey
be supported?
A LETTER TO A FRIEND,
FROM
A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.
It may be well to inform the reader that neither the writer
nor his correspondent are connected with
Manchester Meeting.
LONDON:
PROVOST & CO., HENRIETTA ST., COVENT GARDEN.
1871.
��WHY SHOULD CHARLES VOYSEY
BE SUPPORTED?
Friend,
I thank thee for thy letter received a few days
ago. It is always interesting and useful to have a plain
honest opinion and judgment, especially when they
differ from our own. I fully agree with much that
thou says, but not by any means with all.
It seems to me that Charles Voysey is a man who
has sacrificed every outward consideration for the sake
of his religious convictions, that he is able to say as few
men of the present generation can—“ I have left all,
and followed Thee.” More than this, there is abundant
evidence that he is a man of a deeply earnest religious
spirit. This is amply sufficient to command the sym
pathy of all who really value religious liberty, and
freedom of religious thought; and who believe it to be
the highest duty and privilege of man to follow that
Light which is revealed in his own soul, and the Guide
which speaks to him there. This alone ought to be quite
sufficient to command the sympathy of every Quaker.
It is not needful to enquire whether there is a theo
logical agreement before extending sympathy and help.
By so doing we assist in keeping up the old and still
prevalent idea that Dogma and Creed must be the basis
of religious fellowship. This idea is the basis of sec
tarianism and the parent of all that intolerance and
My
dear
�4
TF7?y should Charles Voysey be supported I
want of charity, which have more or less disgraced the
history of every organized church and ecclesiastical
body.
Thou says thou art ignorant of my “ theological
position,” and enquires if I “ share Charles Voysey’s
opinions”; and thou “regrets to think of my name
being cast in with his.” As a matter of fact, there are
many points on which I differ widely from him, more '
widely probably than thou dost. In my apprehension,
he looks at many passages in the Bible, and at much
of its teaching, from a partial point of view, and
mistakes its real character.
Much reference has been made to the manner in
which Charles Voysey treats the character of Jesus
Christ. I understand the position he takes to be this.
If certain things which the New Testament records
concerning the sayings and doings of our Lord are true,
then His character cannot have been what it is asserted
to have been. Hence the conclusion is that the Bible
records have, in these respects, come down to us incor
rectly or imperfectly.
This is such an important item in the accusations
made against Voysey, that, at the risk of seeming
tedious, I must quote some illustrations from his
writings. The following beautiful passage speaks for
itself:—
“ If my temper towards some chief priests in my own
age makes me read with delight those revilings of the
chief priests by Jesus, and feel glad at the abuse poured
upon them, it reveals to me the fact that I am stirred
by revengeful or, at least, very angry feeling—that I
am in a state of hatred. But if I prefer to think of
Jesus as one who did no sin, neither was guile found
in His mouth, who, when He was reviled, reviled not
again, when He suffered, He threatened not, I am aware
that my temper is improved, and that I prefer the more
gentle and patient picture by reason of my own pro
gress. In this way, if we do not actually make our
�Why should Charles Voysey be supported ?
n
own image of Jesus, we at all events change it at will,
taking away features that we have ceased to reverence
and admire, and adding others that we have learned to
consider still more noble than we have ever worn.
Whatever is to us loveliest, purest, gentlest, most
loving, most manly, that is to us our Christ; and so
long as His name is cherished in the hearts of men,
and taken up adoringly on their lips, it will surely
stand as a sign or symbol of what God wishes us to be ;
and His loving life and loving death will be to us the
example of what He wishes us to do. In any case, we
must own that, if St. Peter’s account of Jesus be the
truest, few, if any, of our race have yet reached so high
a perfection. He is still the firstborn among many
brethren, and none can dispute His right to be called
the 1 Shepherd and Bishop of our souls.’ ” *
The nature of Voysey’s belief in Christ as our Saviour
appears in the next passage :—
“ God’s work of salvation is never ended; for, as we
rise higher and higher, the attainments we thought so
good become hardened into habits, and cease to be vir
tuous ; while the weaknesses which we once excused
are regarded no longer with leniency, but must be con
quered and trampled down as sins. And God uses
men and women to help Him in his work of salvation.
Good fathers and good mothers, good husbands and
good wives, faithful friends, and good masters and good
servants, are all saviours, as much and more so to us
than the noble army of martyrs and the glorious com
pany of apostles and prophets. So too, only in the
highest degree, the Lord Jesus Christ is our Saviour,
enlightening the world by His own beautiful life, and
by the good news of a Heavenly Father’s love, which
He brought into the darkness of a despairing world.
Whatever helps to reveal the constant love of God the
Sermons, vol. iii. pp. 231, 232.
�6
II hy should Charles Voysey be supported 1
Father for us all—whatever helps to rekindle our dying
love for Him, and for each other—that, in the best
sense, is a means of salvation. And wherever men and
women are, in however slow a degree, amending their
lives, and becoming more and more a blessing and hap
piness to those around them, whatever be their creed,
there surely is the Almighty and Most Merciful God
at work ‘redeeming their lives from destruction, and
crowning them with loving-kindness and tender
mercies.’ ” *
Voysey constantly expresses the highest reverence
for the character of Christ, and his aim is to remove
blemishes which he believes the Scriptures themselves
place upon it. Whether the passages in question are
susceptible of a different meaning and complexion than
that which he gives to them is another matter alto
gether.
Thy letter specially refers to the conclusion of Voysey’s
recent “ Lecture on the Bible,” where he comments on
Jesus saying to His mother, “Woman, behold thy Son.”
Even if we admit the adjectives which he applies to
this scene, it is perfectly clear from the context that
Voysey looks upon the account as false, and in no way
accuses Christ of acting in a manner which he so
deprecates.
I cannot resist again quoting from his writings, to
show how Voysey endeavours to teach men to follow
Christ:—
< Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man
will come after me, let him deny himself and take up
his cross, and follow me.’ We call ourselves the dis
ciples and followers of our Lord . . . but the majority
of us Christians are about as ignorant of the character’
and work of Christ as the apostles were. Few ever
think of Him as ‘ one who came to bear witness unto
Sermons, vol. ii. pp. 10, 11.
�Why should Charles Voysey be supported I
7
the truth,’ and as one whose great object was thereby
to deliver men’s souls from bondage, and to save them
from their sins. Most of us Christians either forget or
do not even know the meaning of Christ’s coming to
bear witness unto the Truth, to live and die for it;
while many of those who contemplate the death and
passion of our Lord regard it only as a means of deliver
ance from everlasting punishment............. God’s call is
to speak the truth boldly, let the consequences be what
they may ; man’s advice is to be very cautious, and not
at all bold, and to be guided entirely by reference to
the consequences. This is the Church of to-day, and
I deliberately, but sorrowfully, say, we neither under
stand Christ, nor follow Him. If any will truly come
after Him, at however humble a distance, he can only
do so by ‘ denying himself and taking up his cross.’ . . .
I have been speaking much, if not altogether, in refe
rence to the clergy—to the following Christ in teaching
unpalatable truth. But there is even a far more im
portant following of Him than this, to be done day by
day, by each and all of us, in our own homes, where
every one ought to give way and to deny himself that
he may do better for others. The crosses of life are
not always heavy, but they are daily and constant, and
it just makes all the difference between a true and a
false following of Christ, whether we systematically
refuse to bear our own cross, laying it or trying to lay it
upon some one else instead, or take it up submissively
and cheerfully, as something doubly precious and sanc
tified, as sent by God for the good of our souls, and as
sent also by Him as a means of comforting and saving
the lives of others. . . . Our true reward, our highest
happiness on earth as well as in heaven, depends on
our following Christ, not merely in the great and rare
struggles of the human mind after truth and liberty,
but also, and most of all, in our daily living in a spirit
of true self-denial, and seeking only the peace and
welfare and happiness of those around us. Let us pray
then that, both in our public and private callings, the
�8
JP7z?/ should Charles Voysey be supported ?
same mind may be in us which was also in Christ
Jesus. For, £ if any man have not the spirit of Christ,
he is none of His.’ ” *
“ They rightly judged that God had reversed the
ignorant judgment of men—that Him whom men had
rejected and crucified, God had exalted to highest
happiness above, and to the position of Prince and
Lord in the hearts of His followers. They rightly
judged that ‘ God had highly exalted Him, and given
Him a name which is above every name’—subject only
to God Himself, who is, and was, and will for ever be,
our all in all. This is right and proper loyalty to
Jesus Christ as the noblest of the Sons of God whom
the eyes of men had ever seen.”!
Thou uses the expression—££ follower of Charles
Voysey.” There is nothing which he himself would
more strongly deprecate. In a private letter, written a
few months ago, he says :—“ Truly I am glad I am
what I am ! A poor and undignified country parson.
Had I been a Bishop, what shoals of worldly, frivolous,
pandering followers I might have had, men whose souls
were barren, dry, and empty, and as really irreligious
as the blind devotees of the Stock Exchange or the
Race-course. As it is, all my work is simply the con
quest of Truth over prejudice, error, ignorance, and
every worldly influence. The man is forgotten in what
he says. And so it should ever be; for all the Truth
he utters is God’s, and not his at all. I cannot accept
the title of Guide. All I want is to lead men to their
only Guide—the God of Truth and of Love, and to
regard those who are privileged to speak Truth, as only
fellow-labourers, full of faults and errors —£ earthen
vessels ’— into which some little Divine Treasure has
been poured. It has been the great mistake of humanity
* Sermons, vol. iv. pp. 99—104.
+ Sermons, vol. iv. pp. 35, 36.
�Why should Charles Voysey be supported ?
9
to surround the teacher with a halo which serves to
conceal his imperfections, and at the same time to
dazzle the observers. For this reason, Paul the Apostle
left on record his painful humiliation, which, for want
of an interpreter, has never had its due weight in keep
ing his followers from regarding him as infallible. The
whole blunder and perversion of Christianity to-day,
has been o'wing to the calling of Jesus ‘ Lord, Lord,’
instead of doing God’s will as He directed us. I have
a horror of being thought to be more than I am, or of
standing even for one moment on my own authority,
as a dictator to the minds and hearts and lives of my
fellow-men.”
We may well say, “How are the mighty fallen,”
when such a man as this does not receive the united
moral support of the Society of Friends. The real
reason of this is, that the Society of Friends has become
one of the Churches and Sects, out of which it was
George Fox’s mission to call the Children of God. It
is impossible that thy “ liberal Friend correspondent,”
whose letter thou quotes, can have any comprehension
of Voysey’s spirit when he says, “We are to cease to
listen to Christ, and hearken to the Rev. Charles
Voysey.” The spirit of Quakerism teaches us to follow
no man, neither Fox, Penn, Barclay, nor Voysey.
William Penn, in his Preface to George Fox’s Journal,
speaking of the first “ Friends,” says :—
“ They directed people to a principle by which all
that they asserted, preached, and exhorted others to,
might be wrought in them, and known through expe
rience to them, to be true. Which is a high and dis
tinguishing mark of the truth of their ministry. Both
that they knew what they said, and were not afraid of
coming to the test. For as they were bold from cer
tainty, so they required conformity upon no human
authority, but upon conviction. And the conviction
of this principle, they asserted, was in them that they
preached unto. And unto that they directed them, that
�10
TJ'Vzz/ should Charles Voysey be supported?
they might examine and prove the reality of those
things which they had affirmed of it, as to its mani
festation and work in man. And this is more than the
many ministries in the world pretend to. . . . Which
of them all pretend to speak of their own knowledge
and experience ? or ever directed men to a Divine prin
ciple or agent, placed of God in man, to help him?
And how to know it, and wait to feel its power to work
that good and acceptable will of God in them.”
In George Fox’s writings he constantly testifies to
the same thing :—That “ the Light which every man
that cometh into the world is enlightened with, is the
salvation to the ends of the earth”; that “ this was
Christ’s doctrine,” that “ this Light is Christ, the sub
stance, the righteousness of God.” He says
“ How
is man’s salvation wrought out hut by the power of
Christ within ? How is the old man destroyed but by
Christ within? . . . Who feels Christ within feels
salvation.” *
And Charles Voysey says :—
“ God or Love is the Father of the Divine Nature of
Jesus and of men. He has begotten us all, and as
children of Him we possess part of His own life and
spirit. ... I know there is plenty of wickedness
amongst us, quite enough even in the best of us to
say—1 Father, I have sinned against Thee, and am no
more worthy to be called Thy Son,’-—to make us echo
the Apostle’s graceful apostrophe, 1 Behold what manner
of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we
should be called the sons of God ! ’ But then how could
we tell that God is so good, and that we are unworthy
of His Fatherhood, if it were not that God is already
dwelling in us and revealing Himself to us ? No book,
nor word of man, nor word of Jesus, could of itself
make us feel what God is, and why we are unworthy
of our high calling as His Sons. This is only and
* See many passages, especially in vol. iii. of G. F.’s Works,
American edition.
�Why should Charles Voysey he supported ?
11
solely due to God’s indwelling-—to the Spirit which He
Himself has begotten in us. Therefore as God was in
Christ, so in like manner, though not yet in like degree,
He is in us, or we should never have been able to learn
any truth about Him, or to feel our sonship, or to bewail
our own unworthiness. . . . Let us thankfully accept
at the lips of Jesus the assurance of a tie between our
selves and our Heavenly Father which nothing can ever
break. For if Jesus dwells eternally in the bosom of
the Father, so also do we; for His Father is our Father,
and His God is our God.” *
It is to my mind an entire perversion of the true
facts of the case, to speak of “the disastrous effects
which the support given to Charles Voysey has had at
Manchester.” Rather should we speak of the disastrous
effects produced by the undue assumption and exercise
of ecclesiastical power,—the same old story, and the
same old temptation, into which Churches have ever
fallen.
I hope thou wilt excuse the extreme plainness with
which I have written, and that my meaning is also
plain. I hope also I do not lose sight of the dangers
from which thou warns me;—that it may be quite
possible, even with the best intentions, to pursue a
mischievous course, and one which is prejudicial to the
cause we have most at heart. At the meeting which
I attended in London, I expressed the belief that the
worst thing we could do would be to take any action
which would tend to form a “ sect of Voyseyites.” This
feeling was united with by the meeting. So far as I
can understand the spirit which is now guiding Charles
Voysey’s line of action, it may be summed up in the
following extract from one of his later sermons :—
“ If a man is convinced that he has found a faith
more true, more helpful, more consoling, than other
Sermons, vol. iv. pp. 206, 208.
�12
Why shoiddXhharles Voysey be supported ?
faiths which are common in his time, it is surely that
man’s duty to try and teach that faith to his fellow
men. In proportion as he himself has found it to be
more elevating, more comforting, more consistent with
reason and experience, so surely he ought to be more
eager and constant in proclaiming his own faith, and in
doing what he can to lead others to embrace it also.
I am one of those who think they have found a nobler
faith, and I feel sure that my faith is to be found
in the Bible, and that it was taught by the Hebrew
Prophets and Psalmists, and by Jesus of Nazareth most
of all.” *
The great need of the present time seems to me to be
the preaching of a religion of Life—not of doctrine—
not of belief. That God is the Father of all men, and
will instruct all men in the way in which they are to
walk. This is the substance of Charles Voysey’s teach
ing. He is at the present time its representative man.
Therefore he must be supported; notwithstanding he
may at times be mistaken, and even say harsh, weak,
or bitter things. I have felt and do feel it a privilege to
have rendered him some little moral and material help,
and to have been the means of conveying to him
from others, both material and spiritual expressions of
sympathy.
I am, thy friend sincerely,
* * # # *
1, viii. 1871.
* Sermons, vol. iv. p. 3.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Why should Charles Voysey be supported? A letter to a friend, from a member of the Society of Friends
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Scribbled marks in ink on last page.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Provost & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT3
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
A Member of the Society of Friends
Subject
The topic of the resource
Heresy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Why should Charles Voysey be supported? A letter to a friend, from a member of the Society of Friends), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Voysey
Conway Tracts
Heresy
Quakerism
Society of Friends
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a420e7d248b892e0ed287b3ff420908e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=KmBHGdh3c7rOxNdmB2XHkD4SSNdscxBkrRvK2qdtWYkj5xX1Qs4E1C%7EGCKn9LLAjt3sM4R3i9tmf6UF9qrhuCySIAqJmgKz1%7EhDvqdMNvbhML-JQgwpot8ujsmhkBrEX924529hd7C84eYSGncO7p7NXnxFA-uR4DFw3hOYm5mTrVQXllDvBBblvmgA8qpfyZn27qVPfBgdo%7EY2gTjhN7QO62-VfauaFQHSzqMHlSySm9McL5LLDaGiUct0K55mxv0tyfNPF6E8vICtJnAzcb-gBeaBEFt4qB8O3AtMC8e1Q-OBGSpf1KGRT-VHdaxQHuNs86sgUVDop6GWkOWKPXw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ff68873613dab3e634b2903f3c5863fa
PDF Text
Text
REASON
VERSUS
AUTHORITY.
BY
W. 0. GARR BROOK.
“ Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
Thess., v. 21.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
1871.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�REASON
VERSUS
AUTHORITY.
HE present is a sceptical age. We do not, as
in former times, believe, but criticise. Faith,
in these days, has no province, but the whole area of
human expectation is limited to the range of our
reason. If a truth can be shown to be probable, we
accept it. If it is not, in our estimation, reasonable,
we reject it. We assert, in short, that the instrument
and method of our apprehension is the same, whether
the thing to be apprehended be an episode in Homer’s
Iliad or an incident in Luke’s Life of Christ.
If we interpret aright the intellectual position of
those who urge this as a sign of our spiritual deca
dence, they are, in some sense or measure, prepared
to affirm that reason is unrelated to the subject of
religion. We should not, they think, consider the pro
priety or impropriety of a given religious observance,
the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a supposed
religious obligation, the credibility or incredibility of
an affirmed revelation from heaven, but, with regard
to such matters, our reason is to be held in abeyance.
Within the sphere of our higher life, we are not to
argue, but accept; not criticise, but believe; not ask
for evidence, but proceed upon authority.
T
�6
Reason versus Authority.
Taken absolutely and universally, this instruction
to us for our guidance needs, we think, but to be
touched to be disproved. If everywhere and at all
times, within the sphere of religion, reason is to be
quiescent and faith supreme, either we must adopt
every creed, however opposite, in turn, as the advo
cate of each presses it upon us, or we must, under all
circumstances, abide by our original religious impres
sions, and refuse to relinguish them whatever a deeper
experience may say in opposition. In the former
case, it will be our duty, to-day, being urged thereto
by the Protestant, to denounce Mariolatry, and, to
morrow, pressed by the Catholic, to bow down, in
utmost reverence, to the Virgin Mother. In the
latter, it will be incumbent upon us, whether we are
the children of Protestant or Catholic parents, to ask
no questions and to listen to no persuasion to change
our religious sentiments, but accepting them at first
without inquiry, and abiding by them ever afterwards
irrespective of their hold upon our judgment, to
reduce the problem of the growth or retrogression
of Protestant or Roman Catholic sentiment in this
country to the question of the relative fruitfulness of
Protestant or Roman Catholic parentage.
If they who affirm the supremacy of faith and the
unrelatedness of reason to religion do not affirm it
always and everywhere, they, then, affirm it some
times and somewhere, and the question, of course, is
when and where. In reply, if we ask the Protestant,
he informs us that our reason is to give place to our
faith when we read a certain book, but that our faith
is to give place to our reason when we read any
interpretation of the book which is not our own.
The Catholic, in opposition, says, with much show of
sense, that if we need an infallible book we must,
being often ignorant and always liable to err, need,
from the same consideration, an infallible interpreter,
�Reason versus Authority.
y
and offers us that which he esteems to be so. If we
.relinquish our reason, however, since we cannot
assent to both, we can assent to neither. The double
assertion of our duty to accept and not to question is
equivalent, in force, to the single assertion to ques
tion and not to accept. Where there are two autho
rities, each of which denounces the other and claims
exclusive obedience from ourselves, it may or may
not be fortunate, but it is inevitable that we should
withhold our faith till we have exercised our reason.
Regarding the position more leisurely, we think
that whether or not it may be otherwise defensible, it
is not to be expected that we should admit it merely
because they who assert it have the strongest possible
impression that it is so. They may, as they no doubt
most unquestionably do, very sincerely believe that
they are not, but, unless they are prepared, in addi
tion, to affirm their personal infallibility, they must
admit that they may be, mistaken. The positive
certainty which they assert themselves to possess in
an inward impression which they consider transcends
their reason, they must, nevertheless, when affirmed
by others on behalf of an opposing conclusion, and,
therefore, in their case, on behalf of their own, allow,
at least, admits of question. Since Jew and Gentile,
Catholic and Protestant, Christian and Heathen,
have, in turn, been so assured of the truth of their
convictions as to die for them, and such convictions
have, necessarily, been not merely dissimilar but
professedly antagonistic, it is evident that no con
viction can be so strong, and no fidelity to it so
persistent, as to yield, therein, any, much less a
perfect, guarantee, that their faith is a synonym for
the truth.
Neither can we consent to the relinquishment of
our reason in our religion from the affirmed necessity
of an exact intellectual conception of God, and the
�8
Reason versus Authority.
impossibility, by reason, of attaining to it. Were it
true that a certain intellectual conception were essen
tial to the divine favour, it would, of course, follow
that we might expect the Divine Being to supply us
with an unquestionable method of attaining to it.
On the other hand, it is to be inferred that if the
Divine Being has not placed within the reach of men
generally an infallible method of arriving at an
absolute knowledge of him, it is because it is not
necessary to his favour that they should possess it.
The question, then, is, which of the two is the more
reasonable alternative ? and the answer, we think, is
obvious. Which of the many existing and opposing
conclusions, from Catholicism to Rationalism, shall
be ours, in our youth, will be dependent upon the
accidental circumstances of our birth, and, if we are
not to reason but acquiesce in our original religious
impressions, will continue to be so always. But, if
so, there can be no more unquestionable method of
knowing God without than with our reason—rather,
the alternative to which we fly will be worse than
that from which we flee. The assertion that we
should judge for ourselves renders it possible that we
should mistake, but the assertion that we should not
judge for ourselves makes it inevitable that the
greater portion of mankind must do so, and, accord
ing to the theory of those who affirm the necessity
for an exact intellectual conception of God, to their
eternal ill-doing.
We must, also, we think, reject the argument that
the subject-matter of religion is of that kind which
precludes the competency of our reason. Admitted
that the divine existence is not cognisable by our
senses, it does not therefore follow that we should
accept the opinions of other persons with similarly
imperfect bodily organs, but, simply, that we should
listen to them upon this as upon other questions
�Reason versus Authority.
9
with a view to form a correct opinion of our own.
Admitted that the certainty of a future life is not to
be proved by our reason, so, neither, on the other
hand, can we be certain, though we may feel so, with
out it. He who tells us aught which we could not
know without his telling, must bring proof to us that
he has special or exclusive information upon the sub
ject, and the only part of us which is capable of
dealing with proof is our reason. Admitted that
theological truths cannot be known but must be
believed, the conclusion to which it leads is, not
unreasoning acquiescence in anything or everything
which may be affirmed, but a rational endeavour to
discover that which, if not certain, is most probable.
There may or may not in the circumstance that we
cannot know God fully without a revelation, be
ground to expect one, but, even upon the supposi
tion that one is to be expected, whether or not it has
been given, and if so, when and where, and what its
purport, must be matter of opinion ; and inasmuch
as experience teaches us that men are positive upon
such questions, not in proportion to the breadth, but
the limitation of their vision, the strength and extent
to which a conclusion thereon is positively affirmed
is the measure of the necessity for calling it into
question.
Relinquishing our, so far, merely defensive position,
and assuming the initiative in the controversy, we
think we are justified in saying that the primd facie
argument is opposed to the conclusion. If there is a
distinguishing mark of Divine Authorship, it is the
relatedness of the means to the end, and the sub
ordination of the lower to the higher methods of
nature. The unreasoning trust of the child, how
ever, is not equal to the intelligent appreciation of
the man, and the higher purpose of our life is not in
eating or drinking, or buying or selling, or marrying
�io
Reason versus Authority.
and giving in marriage, but in the right understanding
and performance of our spiritual relationships. But
if our reason is the highest endowment, as it un
questionably is, with which the Divine Being has
favoured us, and if, even in the estimation of those
who differ from us, the highest purpose of our life is
not in the enjoyment of the present but in prepar
ation for the future, it would seem that if our reason
were intended to serve any purpose whatever, it was,
in any case, intended to guide us in the matter of our
religious hopes and expectations.
This impression is confirmed, we do not hesitate to
say, by the circumstance that the same persons who
call upon us to suspend our reason, nevertheless find
themselves under the ceaseless necessity to appeal to
it upon the subject of our religion. If we remind
the Catholic, for instance, when he presses us to
assent to his proposition, that the Protestant also puts
in a claim, he brings to our mind the modern origin
of the Protestant, calls him a schismatic, and, gene
rally, uses his best endeavours to prove that the
Protestant claim is inadmissible. If, on the other
hand, we inform the Protestant, when he calls upon
us to urge his authoritative dogma, that the Catholic
has anticipated him, the Protestant proceeds to re
mind us that the Catholic is an image worshipper,
quotes secular and ecclesiastical history to bedaub
his church, and, imitating his Roman Catholic
compeer in this at least, uses all his art to
persuade our judgment that he is, and that tho
Catholic is not, entitled to prescribe our religious
opinions. But, if it be true that we should not
reason, why do they each play the part of tempter,
and solicit from us a judgment ? Is it not singular
that our reason should be unfitted to deal with a
subject, and yet that, upon it, the several parties to
the affirmative should never hesitate to appeal to it.
�Reason versus Authority.
11
Surely, of all the transcending mysteries of life,
that which most transcends is the mystery that each
should systematically deny the competency of an
authority to which they appeal, repudiate a right
which they equally recognise, advance and with
draw, according to the conveniences of their argu
ment, the intellectual position, upon which, they
assert, hangs the eternal destinies of their race.
If the pertinency of their conclusion, however, is
not apparent, its wondrous impertinency, if we ex
amine it, it will not be difficult to discover. Traced
to its mental base, is not the meaning of those who
assert that we should not reason but believe, that
they have themselves come to a conclusion upon re
ligious subjects which they wish, whether or not it is
agreeable to our judgment, to impose upon us? Is it
not that the training of their youth, the prejudices of
their class, or the intellectual preferences they have
acquired, point in a certain direction, and that these
appearing to themselves to be sacred, they cannot
understand, and are not prepared to allow, prejudices
and opinions which are not their own ? The reason
why we should not reason is, after all, simply that
they wish to undertake the duty for us. The ground
of their objection is, not that we should come to a
conclusion, bat that we should not come to their con
clusion. If this be not so, wherefore do they recom
mend us to listen to their own polemical discourses ?
How does it happen that books written in defence of
“ the truth,” as they regard it, are laudable, and only
those written in opposition are pernicious ? Of
what other solution is their conduct capable when
they permit — nay, commend — our disposition to
reason, so long as it results in the adoption of their
sentiments ? Stripped of its unintentional disguise,
the assertion that we should not criticise but accept,
�12
Reason versus Authority.
is, simply, the assertion that they who make it believe
that their judgment is, and that the judgment of those
who differ from them is not, to be trusted.
Studiously regarded, indeed, the recommendation
to us for our guidance is not more intellectually
puerile than practically impossible. If the Catholic
has faith in the teaching of his Church, it is not
because he does not exercise his reason, but because,
owing to early training, social circumstance, or
tendency of mind, its claims, upon the whole, appear
to him more rational than any alternative of which
he takes note. If the Protestant is averse to the
claims of the Catholic Church, and sympathises with
the Anglican or any Dissenting formulary, it is not
because he does not come to a judgment upon the
subject of their respective merits, but because, how
ever ignorant and swayed by prejudice, and however
unconscious of the mental operation, his judgment,
nevertheless, inclines to the one in preference to the
other. Nay ! our reason is the only instrument with
which we can assent. Our intellect is the only part
of us capable of faith. Diversity in the things to be
apprehended involves no diversity in the instrument
of our apprehension. Two and two are four, and the
mental operation is the same, when the addition is
of men or angels. The things which are believable
by us, and they only, are such as appear to us
to be probable, whether they be secular or sacred.
Paith is not opposed to, but is the product of, our
reason, alike when it relates to our anticipation of
a summer shower and the second coming of the
Saviour. Taste, feeling, hope, fear, love, hate, educa
tion, or the want thereof, may, as the atmosphere
influences the pendulum, influence the judgment;
but as the eye only sees, and the ear only hears, so
the reason only can assent or dissent, whether the
�Reason versus Authority.
13
proposition submitted to it be the physical relation of
the earth to the sun, or the moral relation of the
human to the Divine Spirit.
In conclusion, we must regard the moral as of
equal value with the intellectual position assigned us
by our critics. The interpretation which they who
do not approve put upon the change which they
correctly assert is coming over society, is that the
present, by consequence, is the less religious age.
Other nations and earlier races, they argue, believed
more readily because they were more spiritual than
we : we are more critical because we are less subject
to a sense of divine obligation. Were we as desirous
of doing God’s will as they were who preceded or
they are who rebuke us, we should be as ready as
they to accept their theological opinions and act upon
their sense of duty. We cannot accept this interpre
tation of our position. Orthodox opinion is sufficiently
tyrannous and persecuting to deter any merely pre
sumptuous person from lightly setting at defiance the
opinion of the many, and asserting, from sheer pride
of intellect, as it is called, a new creed. Were there
no external disadvantage in professing singularity
of religious belief, the force of early association, and
the merely superstitious regard which we have for
the sentiments of our youth, whatever they may be,
would be a sufficiently penal preventive from change,
for the sake of it. The ordinary interests of life
are too present and pressing to admit of length
ened study of religious questions, unless the spirit
within, under the impulse of some strong conviction,
is constrained to give personal attention to a matter
which people generally are willing to leave to
the decision of others. In short, so long as excep
tional attention to a subject is regarded, not as
an indication of the want of ordinary, but of the
possession of a special interest in it, it must be
�14
Reason versus Authority,
assumed that those amongst us who see reason to
change their religious attitude and stand apart, do
so, not because they are less but more impressed;
and they who do not understand and therefore mis
interpret their motive will do well, if not because it is
rational, because, by an authority which they do not
dispute, it is commanded, to follow their example,
and “ prove all things, and hold fast that which is
good.”
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Reason versus authority
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Brook, W. O. Carr
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 14 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT151
Subject
The topic of the resource
Rationalism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Reason versus authority), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Faith and Reason
Rationalism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/416b339b506918df851e853aeff65059.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sGJW0D5hrqnand44zqcRZTvrz-dH5LyfkYsrclwHpngn4t7%7EJspUV6nUkNDNN4y-ej9M4OTdqNNIeLxWQyPAcZTBFyaul0nrNzhh8MQXmjsAlJIcQZ%7EXENUIR%7E0LE70qI5Jm2ryOZme2r7XRsH0mCnmTDMANACvWh7bKyuGKL-sbgitQive%7E2z3LfUmw-yh3g1fvJrYPzeThMayaSl9m6QVD1YxeRKKINValNmzZeBZp9ub91aNwEFhWfn2mExDSQ4Yi5afHVpNwk8jj7anm4lPDMedBVFrSr0qlmmWklGzvbNXjTVxgwfldNjSKXLGS9HISSIlOVNHJ7bDWLJZeRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0269d7a2f5e5af83d2c045f01af58fb2
PDF Text
Text
MEMORIALS
OF
NORTH TYNDALE,
AND ITS
I
FOUR
SURNAMES.
BT
EDW. CHARLTON, M.D., D.C.L.
SECOND EDITION.
Sir Robert Bowes, in bis report upon the state of the Borders in 1550, tells us that “the
countreye of N orth Tynedaill, which is more plenished with wild and misdemeaned people, may
make of men upon horsbak and upon foote about six hundred. They stand most by fewer
surnames, whereof the Charfetons be the chiefe. And in all services or charge impressed uppon
that countrey the Charlton.,, and such as be under their rule, be rated for the one-half of that
countrey, the Robsons for a quarter, and the Dodds and Mylbornes for another quarter. Of
every surname there be certayne families or graves (graynes) of which there be certeyne
hedesmen that leadeth and answereth all for the rest.”
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE :
PRINTED BY J. M. CARR, STEAM PRINTING WORKS, 21, LOW FRIAR STREET,
1871,
��TO THE
PRESENT “ HEDESMAN OF THE FOREMOST GRAYNE/'
WILLIAM HENRY CHARLTON,
OF HESLEYSIDE,
THESE NOTES ON NORTH TYNEDALE ARE OFFERED BY
HIS AFFECTIONATE BROTHER,
EDWARD CHARLTON, M.D.
�The compiling of the following pages has been, a relaxa
tion from the severer duties of a laborious profession.
They
are only brief sketches of what might be a more extended and
perfect work.
The early condition of Tynedale may not
admit of much more illustration; but, could the whole of the
two Iters of Wark be given to the public, and, along with
these, could there but be printed the wondrous stores of
Border Correspondence of the sixteenth century, one half of
which is still buried in the Record Office, they would, together,
form a volume which, though a large one, would not, we trust,
be unacceptable to the public.—E. C.
7, Eldon Square,
July 23rd, 1870.
�\
PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.
The former limited issue of this pamphlet having been
rapidly exhausted, we have pleasure in presenting the present
edition in a considerably extended form.
We have obtained a
number of letters from the stores in the Record Office, relative
to North Tynedale; and though some of these need not be
published in this little work entire, there are others so racy,
and couched in such curious language, that we have not
hesitated to embody them in these pages.
7, Eldon Square,
June lit, 1871.
��MEMORIALS OF NORTH TYNDALE
AND ITS FOUR SURNAMES.
The earliest sketch of this once little known, and. seldom visited
district, may be composed from the study of the remains of primaeval
occupation yet visible on its open moors, or ensconced in its natural
woods. Cultivation has done little here; the land lies too high for
the growth of corn with success; while stock feeding, the almost
universal pursuit among the farmers, preserves, for the antiquary, the
original features of the country. The plough has obliterated the
traces of our ancestors, in the more fertile districts of England; but
here, in the yet unchanged ground of the North Tyne, the hill forts,
the dykes, the camps, and even the resting-places of the dead, have
been maintained uninjured. The whole district of the North Tyne
abounds in traces of early occupation. Whether the land was first
occupied by a Celtic people, or the Celts were only the conquerors and
supplanters of a still earlier race, we leave to abler pens, and to future
investigators; but all along the course of the North Tyne, from
Chollerford to Kielder, there are hill forts, camps, dykes, and cairns,
attesting the former existence of a considerable population. Probably,
in the earliest times, each small district was under the rule of some
petty chieftain, who, as a matter of course, was at war, or had a
grievance against his neighbour. Hence arose many of the isolated
hill forts, the strongholds at the Countess Park, the hill fort at the
top of the Garret Holt (Caer yt Holt). Each chieftain tried to secure
his worldy goods, his cattle, his wives, and his children, from the
sudden incursions of his neighbouring foe. Each family had, probably,
some feud, which, like the vendetta of Corsica in our times, was
handed down from father to son. Of the weapons of these warriors,
few, indeed, have come down to us. Some stone axes; and, probably
of later date, a few elegant chisels, or axes, of bronze, have been
�8
discovered in the district. The burial mounds, or cairns, have afforded
some rude, cord-marked or thong-marked urns, sometimes with por
tions of jet necklaces and beads; and, in one instance, on the
demolition of a cairn at Ridsdale, there was found a necklace of
pure gold beads, which is now preserved in the Newcastle Museum.
Four or five years ago, a gold armlet was discovered near Bellingham,
but, under the pressure of the absurd laws regarding treasure trove,
it was consigned to the melting pot. Such are the faint traces of
British occupation; and, in North Tyne proper, the mighty Roman
host has left scarcely an abiding mark, while the neighbouring valley
of Redesdale presents Roman signs in abundance. The Roman
armies seem to have passed by North Tynedale altogether; and history
tells us nothing of this valley till centuries after the Romans had
retired from Great Britain. A single fragment of a cross, now
preserved in the Newcastle Museum of Antiquaries, shews that, as
early as the seventh or eighth century, Christianity was fully
established here. The fragment alluded to, was found a little above
the present church of Falstone, on a spot marked with “Ruins” , in
Armstrong’s map, of 1769. The inscription on this fragment is
written in two different modes, but in the same language, in Roman
uncial letters on the one side, in Anglo-Saxon Runes on the other.
Both inscriptions have suffered terribly from time and illusage, but
they are evidently alike in signification, and the letters that are
obliterated on the one side, are, in most cases, to be made out on
the other. They have been cut on a monumental cross, and run as
follow :—
“ Eomaer set this (cross) up for his
Uncle, Hroethbert. Pray for his soul.”
It is probable that the old Anglo-Saxon runes used in Pagan times,
were, at the date of the erection of this cross, fast disappearing before
the influence of the Latin Christianity introduced by St. Augustine
and his followers; and hence, both the old form of writing, and the
new, have been perpetuated on this solitary fragment. Hrcethbert
is equivalent to the Robert of our day, and the descendants
of Robert would be Robertsons, or Robsons, which now, as of old,
is the chief surname about Falstone. We think we have evidence
here of the Robsons some twelve hundred years ago, in the very
�district where, till lately, they held sway. Whether old Hrcethbert
was the ancestor of the wight-riding Rohsons of the old play
—11 Honest men, save doing a little shifting for their living”—
we will not say.
The Charltons and the Milburns are both
Anglo-Saxon names, bnt the Charltons do not appear till after
the Conquest, and the Milburns are not heard of till several centuries
later. Of the fourth surname—that of Dodd—distinct records even
of the orign of the name are given to us by a right early writer—
Reginald of Durham, w’ho flourished about the year 1150. Here we
have, indeed, almost the first distinct historic traces of North Tynedale
story. Reginald tells us, that when the Danes burst upon Lindisfarne,
in the seventh century, the monks bore off, into the mountains, the
body of St. Cuthbert. From place to place they transported it, till
their number, by famine and desolation, was reduced to four. And
one of these was Eilaf; and he, and his companions, were exhausted
by hunger, and they had no food, save the salted head of a horse and a
single cheese. And Eilaf longed for this cheese, till so great was his
desire thereof, that he hid it, and began to eat thereof. And at noon
the bearers of St. Cuthbert’s body rested in a desert place, and sought
to make their midday meal ‘ and, behold, the cheese on which they
had relied was missing. Then the brethren prayed that the thief
might be changed into a fox, and so there issued straightway from
the wood a fox, vzith the identical cheese in his jaws, which the animal
vainly tried to devour, and as vainly to get rid of, and much laughter
did this cause unto the brethren ; and it was noted, that Eilaf, who
had stolen the cheese, was absent. And they knew that he now
writhed before them in the shape of a fox; and they having been
sufficiently amused, did pray to God, and to St. Cuthbert, to restore
to him his human shape: and, from that day, all the race of Eilaf
bore the name of Tod (Dodd), which, in the mother tongue, signifies
a fox. In the same writer we find the first mention of Bellingham
and Wark, then, as now, the two principal villages in North Tyne.
Reginald relates this story, as having occurred in his own time, or little
before it. We may, therefore, conclude it to have occurred about the
period of the Norman Conquest. There was a man named Sproich,
who was appointed by the almoner of Durham to repair the bridges in
the North Tyne, and he was dwelling at Bainlengham (Bellingham), in
�Tiiidale, with his wife and his only daughter, Eda Brown. And, asan only
child, they loved to see her dressed in rich and fine garments, though
they were poor themselves. And Eda, like many of her sex, delayed
the finishing of her fine garment, “ indumentum de fustico tincto,”
(a brown dyed stuff); and she was working at it on the mom of St.
Laurence’s feast, and her mother rebuked her, saying, she should cease
to work, and prepare to go to church. But Eda was obstinate, and
replied she would work to what hour she liked, but would finish her
gown. And, as she spoke, her left hand, which held the costly stuff,
contracted thereupon, so that she could not move the fingers to open
the hand, nor could they, by force, draw away the cloth they grasped.
And all human aid being vain, they betook themselves to the little
church of St. Cuthbert, the Glorious Confessor; and, as they went
thither, they caused the sufferer to drink of the Well of St. Cuthbert.
*
And, during the whole of that night, the parents and the girl lay
prostrate in prayer in the church, and when it was about the small hours
of the morning, the figure of the saint arose at the altar, and, descending
into the aisle, touched the contracted hand of the sufferer. The girl,
terrified by the apparition, shrieked out, and her mother (anima ducta
foeminea), “just like a woman,” seized her daughter’s hand between
her own palms, and the miracle was left but half completed, for,
though the cloth dropped from her closed fingers, she could not yet
open her hand. Thus they continued till the morning, when the
priest, at mass, having read the Gospel, ordered all in the church to
make a novena of nine Our Fathers for the recovery of the maiden.
And, behold, she immediately recovered, and joyfully held up her
healed hand in the church. And, of this miracle, there are at this
day witnesses. All the men, women, boys, and girls, of the said
village of Bellingham, and the priest himself—whose name is Samuel
—vouches for it, and Sproich, her father, never speaks of it without
tears. And it came to pass, that the said girl was about to be
married, and the steward of the Earl (of Badenoch ?) demanded a
heavy fine from the parents, and when they refused to pay, he entered
their dwelling, and took from thence tlieir cow, and drove her to
Wark, and placed her there in the stable of one Elsi, a man of his
* This well still exists in the churchyard, and is called “ Cuddy’s Well ” to
this day.—E. C.
�11
following. And Sproich invoked the aid of St. Cuthbert against the
spoliation, and Eilaf, the bailiff, sneered thereat, and said he knew
not the man. And, behold, while he sate at supper at Wark, there
came a mighty flash of lightning, and consumed the building; but
the cow escaped unhurt, and, bellowing loudly, took her way back to
Bellingham. Walter, of Flanders, lived a little before that time at
Bellingham, and, “ being a man of evil mind, he one day took forcible
possession of an axe in Sproich’s house, and sneered at the power of
St. Cuthbert, whose aid Sproich invoked on the spot; and. behold, at
the first stroke of his work, the axe head flew from the shaft, and,
striking him on the head, bore him to the ground.” Another miracle
is recorded of a man having lost his axe, while working at the bridge,
at the Bridge Ford, and recovering it through the aid of St. Cuthbert.
The Bridge Ford is nearly a mile below Bellingham; the river here
is shallow, and divided by an island, but no traces of the bridge now
remain.
Another hundred years pass away, and we are then presented
with a vigorous contemporary portrait of men and manners in North
Tynedale towards the close of the thirteenth century.
It is well known that the present boundaries between England and
Scotland have not existed from the earliest times. North Tynedale
was twice after the Conquest under the Scottish yoke. Cumberland,
and a part of Northumberland, including North Tynedale, down to at
least Chollerford Bridge, were ceded by King Stephen to David King
of Scotland, but were resumed by Henry II., in the third year of his
reign. Shortly after, however, Tynedale was again granted to
William the Lion, in 1159, to be held under homage only, and Jura
Regalia were enjoyed there by the Scottish sovereigns. In North
Tynedale, therefore, the Scottish courts were regularly held, and,
fortunately, among the records still preserved in London, there has
been discovered a full “Roll” of the Justices itinerant of King
Alexander III. of Scotland, of the pleas held at Wark, in Tynedale,
in the thirty-first year of that monarch’s reign, or in 1279. This was
the same King Alexander, who, in 1263, defeated Hakon, the old
King of Norway, at the battle of Largs, in Ayrshire; and possibly
some of the stout soldiers of the North Tyne crossed swords with the
Norseman on that eventful day, just as their ancestors, five centuries
�12
before, had resisted the invading Danes on their own Eastern shores.
Of the Scottish records, only this single one has been preserved. It
is a long document, in Latin, occupying no less than sixty closelyprinted pages, in the only case where it has been printed, viz., in the
Newcastle Volume of the Transactions of the Archseological Institute.
The now quiet little village of Wark was, in Saxon times, probably
the capital of Tynedale j at all events, it was so shortly after the
Conquest, and continued to be so regarded during the Scottish occu
pation. When Tynedale came under English rule once more, Wark
still was the capital of the district. Here, upon the Mote Hill (the
hill of meeting), were held the Courts of the Liberties of Tynedale,
and, of the proceedings of these courts, there have fortunately been
preserved the two precious records illustrative of the early history of
North Tyne. One of these documents has been already printed, as
before stated; the other is still in manuscript in the Record Office,
but a full authentic copy has been made, and which is now in
possession of the Society of Antiquaries of this town. It is the
Record of the Session of the Liberties of Tynedale, held at
Wark, in the reign of King Edward I., at the Easter term, in
1293.
Tynedale was now once more under English rule, and
has so continued to the present day. In these two documents
we have a most lively picture of the manners and customs of
those remote times. We are presented with the names of the holders
of land, and of their tenants, many of which names are found in the
district at the present day. The Swinburnes held the lands at
Chollerton which they now possess; the Charltons owned the lands
at Hesleyside, but still resided at their old family seat at Charlton,
on the opposite side of the river; the Robsons and Dodds are fre
quently mentioned, but of the Milburns we hardly find a trace, though
a Milburn is mentioned as residing at Longhorsely in 1322. These
are the four graynes, or clans, which ruled in North Tynedale three
centuries later. One powerful family has entirely disappeared from
the district, their name alone surviving in the chief town of Tynedale
—viz., the De Bellinghams. They seem to have ruled with great
power, as officers of the Scottish King Alexander III., over much
of the country around Bellingham, subject, however, to the
higher powers of the Cornyns, who seem to have been the lords
�13
paramount, and who are known to have possessed Tarset and Dala
Castles higher up the Tyne.
William de Bellingham was sheriff of Tynedale at this time, 1279.
He was, likewise, Forester of Tynedale, under the King of Scotland.
His son Richard married the heiress of Burneshead in Westmore
land, and his descendants resided long at the old mansion of Levens
Hall, near Kendal. Becoming impoverished, they sold Levens to
the Grahams, in 1689, and are now represented, by Sir Alan E. Bel
lingham, of Castle Bellingham, in Ireland. Within the last hundred
years money was paid to the representatives of the Bellinghams, as
quit rents for lands at the Haining, in North Tynedale. Alan de
Bellingham left only two daughters, heiresses, one of whom was married
to Sir Roland Bellasis, of Bellasis, in the County of Durham. In these
two most important documents, the name of the Charltons, who after
wards rose to be the leading family in the district, first appears. In
the second Iter, 1293, Adam de Charlton proves that he held, at
Charlton, the same lands that had been possessed by his grandfather
William de Charlton. Adam de Charlton was married and in
possession of Charlton in 1279 ; and allowing thirty years for a
generation, William de Charlton’s tenure of Charlton is carried
back nearly to the commencement’ of the 13th century. Adam de
Charlton died in 1303, when his son William was twenty-two years
of age ■ and we here give the “Inquisito post mortem” of the former,
a document which, a few years ago, was discovered among the records
in the Tower of London.
Inq.
p. m.
31 Edw : I. No. 180.
(Public Record Office.)
Inquisitio de terris et tenementis quæ fuerunt Adæ de Charlton in
Tynedale, die quo obiit, facta apud Beddyncham die Sabbati próxima
post festum Sancti Johannis ante Portam Latinam, anno regni Regis
Edwardi tricésimo primo, per sacramentum Hutred de Brerygg,
Johannes Cornehyrd, Willielmi filii Ed,’ &c.
Qui dicunt, super sacramentum suum, quod Adam de Charleton
tenuit manerium de Charlton, in dominico suo ut de feodo, die quo
obiit, per servitium vicesimæ partis unius feodi militis, de manerio de
�14
Tirset in Tyndale, quod est in manu domini regis per forisfacturam
Johannes Cornyn de Badenagh.
Et dicunt quod est ibidem quoddam capitale messuagium, quod valet
per annum xiid. Item sunt ibidem quadraginta acra terrse arabalis in
dominico, quarum quselibet acra valet per annum viiid. Item sunt ibi
septem acrae prati, quarum quaelibet acra valet per annum iiss. Item
est ibi quidem boscus, qui valeret per annum iiiiss. in venditione
subbosci, si emptor inveniretur. Item est ibi quoddam molendinum
aquaticum, quod valet per annum xiiiss. iiiid. Item sunt ibi sexaginta
acrae terrae husbandorum, quarum quaelibet acra valet per annum xiid.
Item est ibi quoddam mansio in le Hunteland, quae vocatur le Scele,
quae valet per annum iiiis.
Summa omnium particularum in hac inquisitone contentarum viu.
iiis.
Dicunt etiam quod Willielmus, filius praedicti Ad®, est propinquior
haeres ejusdem, et dicunt quod erit aetatis viginti et duorum annorum
ad festum Sancti Laurentii proximo futurum,
Adam de Charlton, who deceased on the Saturday before the 6th of
May, 1303, is the same individual who figures in the Iter of Wark in
1279, as the successful opponent of William de Bellingham relative to
two hundred acres of land and meadow at Hesleyside.
The mode of spelling Bellingham, Beddyncham, shows that the
“ gh” was pronounced soft, as at present, and accords with the singular
orthography “Bellinjham” in the Iter of Wark.
Hutred or Huchtred—an old Saxon or Danish name—is found
taking his name from Brerygg, now Brieridge, a farm adjoining the
grounds at Hesleyside.
The name Cornehyrde is curious; it may have been misspelt for
Cowhyrde, but perhaps there were guardians of the corn as well as of
the cattle in those days.
It will be observed that William is here given as the son of Ed’ or
Edie, as the common abbreviation of Adam—even at this day.
The wood of Charlton, through which the Border Counties Railway
passes, still exists, and is probably not much changed.
The mill that Adam de Charlton held is no doubt the old picturesque
�15
mill opposite to Charlton, now called Hesleyside Mill, or Walk Mill,
and till lately the residence of a well known character, old James
Turnbull.
The mansion in the Huntland was no doubt the Alder Shield, now
called the Auld-Man-Shield on the hill behind Hesleyside. The
Huntlands of Tindale are often spoken of in ancient deeds and grants.
A large proportion of these lands are Huntlands to this day, as far as
regards grouse and black game, but goodly flocks of cheviot sheep
have replaced the red deer and the roe that formerly tenanted these
wastes.
All these properties, with the exception of Charlton, which was sold
about a hundred years ago, are still in the hands of the family of
Charlton.
The judges of the Scottish Crown, who sat at Wark in this year
(1279), the only one of which a record has been preserved, were
Thomas Randolph, Symon Freser, or Fraser, Hugh de Peresby, and
David de Torthoralde.
The Iter itself is, of course, drawn in the rather cramped law Latin
of the time; and this perhaps will serve as our excuse for making a
few brief extracts and notes on its more remarkable details ; and our
local acquaintance with the district has been of no small aid in
identifying many localities here alluded to. It is possible that
some of the details, may be more personally interesting to ourselves
than to others ; but we wish to convey an accurate picture of North
Tynedale as it was nearly six hundred years ago. What a fund of
curious information is laid bare to us by this fragmentary record of
a single year’s judicial proceedings at the old Mote Hill, at Wark 1
We learn who were the chief oppressors of the people. We see the
deference paid to the office of coroner and to the decisions of twelve
jurymen in doubtful oases. The Swinburne holds the lands now
possessed by his representative; while of another powerful family,
the De Bellinghams, not a trace now remains in the town that bears
their name. It is strange, too, to find how hereditary is the love of
the chase in some families—how that Robert Homel or Humble was
fined for fishing salmon in close time, when no doubt he was as little
able to resist the temptation of securing the lordly fish as his de
scendants of that name at the present day.
�16
The names of the sheriffs after the last Iter were William de Bel
lingham, John de Swynburne, and John de Warewyke; and of the coro
ners, John de Schutelington, Gilbert de Grendon, and Odoard de
Ridely. Amongst the names of the jurors of Tynedale we find the
following :>—William de Schepelaw (Shipley), Thomas de Thirlwall,
Matthew de Whitfield, and Thomas Bell; while John de Maughan
is a juror of Newbrough, and Roger Colstan (Coulson), and Richard
Homel are inmates of the Prison at Wark. Parties are constantly
designated as living on the Wall. Thus, Adam the son of Robert of
the Wall (filius Roberti de Muro), Huchtred of the Wall and Hugh
of the Wall, all claim possession of certain lands near Haltwhistle
and the Wall town.
We shall now briefly notice some of the various pleas brought
against sundry parties for forcible dispossession of land, &c.
William de Swynburne first claims our attention. He was treasurer
to Margaret, Queen of Scotland ; for a letter in his favour from that
queen is still extant, recommending our beloved in Christ, William
de Swynburne, our treasurer, to the favourable notice of William de
Merton, Chancellor of England.
In 1263, William de Swynburne paid 10s., for rent of land in Old
Halgton, Halgton, Halgton Strothers, and Halgton (now Haughton,
near Humshaugh). He was evidently a powerful chieftain, and greatly
involved in disputes with his weaker neighbours, whose lands he seems
to have been disposed to lay claim to at all seasons. We fear that
John de Tecket, and Joan his wife acted but foolishly when they
brought a complaint before the justices at Wark, that William de
Swinburne had wrongfully dispossessed them of their free pasturage in
Haughton Strother and in Nunewicke, belonging to their free tene
ment in Simondburn. And William de Swinburne, more learned,
doubtless, in the bye paths of the law, calls the attention of the court
that their writ is incorrect in form (viciosum est, et peccat in forma),
which the said John and J oan could not gainsay ; wherefore they take
nothing by their complaint, and remain at the mercy of the Court pro
falso clamore. A similar action, relating to Haughton, is brought by
John Mowbray for pasturage appertaining to his free tenement in
Hounshale (Humshaugh)—but with no better success. Symon the
Palmer, too, must needs try his hand against the Swinburne in the
�matter of those same pastures ; but he fails like the rest. Again :—
William de Swinburne is summoned by Christiana, widow of Hugh
de Nunnewike (Nunwick), to obtain her dower of 26 acres of land in
Nunwick; but this is soon amicably arranged. Shortly after, John
de West Denton appears by his bailiff, William de Swethope, against
William de Swinburne, for the unlawfully dispossessing him of 39
acres of land in Haughton. But the Swinburne’s good fortune
follows him, and he proves that he, through John de Swinburne, had
been enfeoffed of the said lands by John of West Denton; and so
gains his cause. William de Tynedale acknowledges a debt to the said
William de Swinburne of 100 shillings, 20 shillings of which he pays
down at once; and he further covenants to pay a half at Pentecost,
and the other half of the remainder at the Feast of St. Martin ; and
should he fail, the bailiff of the barony is to take the same out of his
lands and cattle. Such are the scenes on which appears one of the
direct ancestors of the late venerable President of the Antiquarian
Society of Newcastle. We see how he acquired lands, and with what
success he defended his claims.
Let us turn now to another of the magnates of Tynedale in those
days—to a family of which the name alone remains to indicate its
former dignity. The De Bellinghams are now represented by an Irish
baronet. They are said to have acquired the Levens Estate, near
Kendal, about 1582 ; but it is not certain ht what period they parted
with the last acre of their lands at Bellingham. They retained some
interest in the district to a very late period, as we find it recorded that
William de Bellingham inhabited the fortified bastel house at
Hawyke, near Kirkwhelpington, in the year 1522. The site of their
fortalice was on the east side of the Hareshaw Burn, where an artificial
mound is still visible, and is at no great distance from the mill which
the De Bellinghams held of the Scottish king, paying for the latterin 1263,
the enormous rent of ten pounds sterling. It may be that the chan
try chapel of St. Catherine in the very curious old stone-roofed church
of Bellingham, was founded by this powerful family; for William De
Bellingham was, with John de Swineburne and John de Warewyke,
a sheriff of the regality. To judge from the records of this single
Iter, William de Bellingham seems to have passed his life in perpetual
feud with his neighbours:—and that, not only with the lesser
�landholders, but with the most powerful of all—the great ecclesiastical
dignitaries of Hexham and of Jedburgh. He retracted his complaint
against the Prior of Hexham for trespass, but of his “ differences ”
with Nicholas de Prenderlathe, Abbot of Jedworth, we find the fullest
and most ample details. The Abbot of Jedworth, or more probably
one of his predecessors, had received from the Scottish king the rmht
O
o
of pasturage, and a tenement in Euelingjam (now Ealingham)_ a
farm about two miles from Bellingham. There appears to have been
a mill on this property at that time; for it is more than once referred to.
We have ascertained that it stood on the very small runner that comes
down the valley directly south of Ealingham 1 and perhaps it was only
one of those curious little mills which once existed in this country, and
are still to be seen attached to almost every farm in Shetland and Ork
ney. The mills on the Tyne, however, were of much greater importance,
In 1263, not less than 177 a year was paid as rent for the Mill at
Wark; and in the same year 10s. was disbursed for the repair's of the
said mill, by altering the course of the Warksburn. The orign of the
dispute between the abbot and William de Bellingham was one
that is frequent enough in North Tyne at the present day—viz., a
complaint of injury received through the fences of the opposite party
on the adjacent land being kept in bad repair. William de Belling
ham held at that time the lands and pasture of Hesleyside, which
adjoin to Ealingham, and' both now belong to one proprietor. The
abbot makes complaint that De Bellingham keeps his ditches and
hedges (fossas et liayas) of Hesleyside in such bad repair, that the
flocks and cattle of the said abbot, pasturing at Euelingham, are liable
to stray on to the lands at Hesleyside, and they are captured and
impounded at Bellingham from day to day, to the damage of the said
abbot of 207 sterling. De Bellingham replies that the hedges and
ditches before the issuing of the writ and since the summer have been as
well kept up as they ought to be at those times. The parties agree, De
Bellingham taking the initiative. As a counter plea, De Bellingham
summons the abbot to show cause why he (De Bellingham) should not
be entitled to free pasturage for two mares with their foals, for two
years, in the abbot’s parks at Euelingham; for William De Bellingham
asserts he was in seisin of the said common in the time of King
Henry, the father of the Lord Edward, now King of England; and
�19
also in the time of the Lord Alexander, now King of Scotland ■ and
that the said abbot deprived him illegally of the said common. De
Bellingham may have been a good swordsman and leader of a fray,
but he was no match in a point of law with the abbot of Jedworth.
It was responded on the part of the Church that it had been neglected
to specify, in the narration, at what time of the year he claimed to
have the right of pasturage; nor had he named the period of the
year for sending the animals into the abbot’s parks. So William De
Bellingham lost his plea, and remained at the mercy of the crown,
pro falso clamore. The amercement was remitted. Another plea
set up by De Bellingham against his foe, was, that the abbot of
Jedworth had unjustly detained a chirograph charter, which he had
handed to his predecessor for inspection. The abbot defends himself
by alleging that there is no specification of the date and place of
delivery of the written document; and that even if this were
remedied, the said Nicholas, his predecessor, was still alive, and that
an action would lie against him. De Bellingham- loses this plea
twice or thrice, the abbot loses his about the insufficient hedges as
often; and wearied out, the parties conclude matters by a fine as
follows :—
“ This is the final agreement made between the Abbot of Jeddeworthe
on the one part, and William de Bellingham on the other part, before
Thomas Randolph and his fellows, justices itinerant at Werke in Tyndale,
on the morrow of the Epiphany, in the 31st year of the reign of King
Alexander, upon divers contentions there between them moved—viz., on
the part of the abbot as regards the repairs of the ditches and hedges of
the said William in Heselyside, and also regarding the common of pasture at
Hesilyside belonging to the free tenement of the said abbot in Euelingham;
and on the part of the said William, respecting the annual rent of thirteen
bolls of flour and four shillings in silver ; and also regarding the pasturage
of two mares -with their foals of two years in the parks of the said abbot in
Euelingham. And that the said William, for himself and his heirs in per
petuity, agrees that he and his heirs shall well and sufficiently, according
to the custom of the country, close and repair his ditches and hedges of
Heselyside, from the Mabamsburne towards the east, to Strikeliscloyche
(Stirkscleugh), and from Strikelscloyche to the Tyne, under the inspection
of two lawful men of Belingham, two of Euelingham, two of Shutlington
(Shitlington), and two of Charleton ; and that the said men shall inspect
the said hedges and enclosures every year, in the week of Pentecost. And
whensoever the same men, or the major part, of them, shall decree repara
tions to be made in the same hedges and enclosures, these shall immediately
be done by the said William and his heirs, in the following week, without
delay, according to the order of the said men, or the major part of them.—
And the said William, for himself and for his heirs in perpetuity, grants
to the said abbot and to his successors, and to their tenants of Euelingham,
�common of pasture of Ilesilyside within the said hedges in the open time
of the year, for all his flocks, and without the hedges at all times of the
year, as appertaining unto his free tenement in Euelingliam. But still
that his flocks shall lie each night on the east side of Strikelscloyche (Stirkscleugh.”
De Bellingham also gives up all claim for the annual rent of thirteen
bolls of flour and four shillings of silver ; as likewise to pasturage in
Euelingham for two mares and their foals. And it is agreed likewise
that the chirographs that have passed between Nicholas, once Abbot of
Jedworth, and predecessor of the present abbot, and the said William,
shall remain in full force. “ And for this remise and quitclaim, the said
abbot hath released and quitclaimed to' the said William the common
of pasture he possessed for forty mares with their foals of two years in
Belingeliam, Wardlaw, and Grenacris, reserving to the said abbot and his
successors common of pastures in the said vills for forty cows with their
calves of one year, according to the tenor of the charter granted by Alan,
the son of Wollin, and grandfather of the said William, to the church of
Blessed Mary at Jeddeworthe, and to the canons therein serving God.”
At this time, Adam, son of William de Bellingham, held an ox-gang
of land and 20 acres of meadow in Charlton. The possession of the
Hesleyside pastures does not seem to have brought tranquillity to the
rapacious De Bellinghams; for their claims were disputed by other
parties—viz., by John de Shutelington and Adam de Charleton, both
of whom complain that William de Bellingham had unjustly deprived
them of 200 acres of land and meadow at Hesleyside, to which they
had free access, with all their cattle, after the grass and hay had been
carried home (post blada et f&na asportata). Adam de Charleton
asserts that the said pasturage appertains to his free tenement in Little
Charleton. William de Bellingham replies that the said tenement of
Shutelington was formerly free forest of our lord the king, and that
the king approved a certain portion of the said pasture, and bestowed
it on the said William. And that, with regard to Adam de Charleton,
he never had been seised of the said common pasturage since the king
had demised the said tenement to the said William. The jury, how
ever, to their great honour, decide against the claim of De Bellingham,
and that the claims of John de Shitlington and Adam de Charleton
are good, as their writs state. Perhaps this is the earliest mention of
the family of Charlton obtaining lands in Hesleyside—which they have
continued to hold to the present day. The old fortalice, at Hesleyside,
was standing within the memory of persons yet living, as was also the
peel at Charlton. Lastly, William de Bellingham is summoned to
answer to the king by what titles he claims to own two parts of the
�21
manor of Bellingham, which belonged to the ancient demesne of our
lord the king. De Bellingham replies that all his ancestors had held
the two parts of the manor in question, with all their appurtenances,
from time immemorial under the predecessors of our lord the King of
Scotland, by the service of being the foresters of the King of Scotland
throughout all his forest of Tynedale, but declines to litigate with the
king, and submits the plea to his grace.
Such is an imperfect outline of one year’s proceedings at Wark
Courts in the matter of the families of Swinburne and De Bellingham;
but there are other minor cases of curious interest. Thus, in a plea
between Bartholomew de Prat and Robert de Insula (or De Lisle), oi
Chipchase, relative to rights of pasturage in Knaresdale, it was found
that the plaintiff’s grandfather had the right of pasturing his flocks as
far as Tymberschaweburne, and as much beyond the said Tymberschaweburne as the flocks could return from in a single day, so as they
might not pass a night beyond that burne.
The felonies and acts of violence occupy a smaller space in the Wark
Iter than might have been presumed from the supposed lawless state
of the country.
John of Hawelton and Thomas de Thirlwall do not seem to have
confined their raids to Scotland j for, on the Sunday before the Feast
of St. James, in the 18th year of Alexander, King of Scotland, they
had plundered the good town of Wark of 30 oxen, each of the value
of 10s.; 18 cows, each worth half a mark ; one bull, worth half a
mark ; and 15 other cattle, each of the value of 5s.; besides 200 sheep,
both wethers and ewes, each valued at twelve pence; and that the
said John of Hawelton drove them to his park at Swyinescholes
(Sewingshields), and there unjustly detains them against the peace of
our lord the king.
The townships in which robberies and housebreakings occur were
bound to pursue the thieves immediately with hue and cry; and
numerous entries occur where such townships are placed at the mercy
of the crown for neglect of this their duty. Thus :—‘‘ Certain un
known malefactors broke into the house of Agnes, the wife of William
Pulayn, and bound the said Agnes, and Evo ba, her daughter, and
thereupon carried away all their goods. Nor is any one suspected
�22
beyond the aforesaid malefactors. And the township of Haltwhistle,
which did not arrest them, is “ in misericordia.” ’
Thomas Russell, of Playnmellor, slew Robert the son of Auger of
Collanwood (Coanwood), in the town of Haltwhistle j and afterwards
he fled to the church and abjured the kingdom.
The canny Scots occasionally made a raid over the border, even to
the detriment of their then countrymen of Tynedale. Alexander, of
Lothian, Arthur of Galwichia (Galloway), David of Clidesdale, and
Hugh the Carpenter, broke into the house of William de Fenwike in
Symundeburne, and bound the said William, and carried off his cattle.
There should have been honour among those of the same calling.
Occasionally, the reivers used singular means to avoid pursuit.
Thus, when certain unknown malefactors broke into the house of
Robert Unthank, in Melkridge, in South Tyne, they shut up Alicia
his daughter in a chest (in quddam a/rchd incluserunt),
The clergy were not always free from the general failing of taking
liberties with other men’s property.
Thus, Beatrix of Quitfield (Whitfield), summoned Thomas the
Archdeacon of Northumberland, Master Hugo of Wodehalle, John de
Burton, and Thomas of Haydene, chaplain, for robbery and receipt of
felony, &c. And the said Master Hugo and all the others appeared,
excepting Thomas the Archdeacon ; but the testimony of the said
Beatrix was not admitted, as it was proved by the bishop’s letters
patent that she was excommunicate. The accused, moreover, pleaded
that they were clerks, and would not, therefore, answer to the court.
Again :—Symon the clerk, and Richard Alpendache, clerk, broke
open the house of John the Fuller. Richard Alpendache was taken
and imprisoned at Wark ; but afterwards, at the assize, was delivered
over to the bishop as a clerk. William, the clerk of Whitfield, flies
the country foi’ stealing of one cow and other evil deeds.
There seems to have been some strange names in Tynedale in those
days. May they not have been byenames bestowed on the parties ?
Adam Aydrunken accidentally upset a boat in the water of Tyne, so
that he drowned thereby Beatrice his wife.
*
* The same name occurs in 1 Sur. 269, 273. One of the most amusing illustra
tions of names in the record is at p. lvi., where the jury find that he who in a writ
was styled Wysman, was rightly called Seliman.
�23
At Newbrough, there seems to have been a family bearing the
repulsive name of Unkutheman (unco’ man). Cecilia, the wife of
John Unkutheman, of Newbrough, destroyed herself, when pregnant,
m her own chamber with a certain razor. The holders of this unlucky
name appear to have been unfortunate. William Unkutheman and
Elwald de Aldenestone were making a certain dam or fence (sepem),
in the water of Tyne. And the said William was striking upon a
certain stake with a certain mallet to drive it into the ground, when
the head of the mallet flew off, and striking Elwald upon the head,
deprived him of life. Poor William Unkutheman was taken up and
imprisoned for the homicide ; but a verdict of accidental death was
returned, “ et concessa est ei pax ” (and peace was conceded to him),
says the record.
Bates the son of William (Williamson), Gilbert Trutte, son of Adam
with the Nose (Adam cum Naso), are fled for breaking into the house
of Emma of Whitchester.
Sometimes the coroner, who seems to have been of much greater
authority in those days, made short work of a thief j as when a certain
unknown malefactor stole four geese in the town of Newbrough, and
was taken in the act; and by order of Hugo de Ferewithescheles, the
coroner, his ear was cut off.
At Bellingham, and further up Tyne, they seem to have dispensed
with the coroner on these occasions altogether. Thus, Emma of
Waynhoppe (Wenhope, near Kidder) was taken for theft at Belling
ham, and there decapitated. And it was proved by twelve jurors that
the townships of Bellingham, Euelingham, and................. decapitated
her without the coroner.
“ Wherefore they are at the mercy of the
crown.”
Again :—The hamlets of Dunclif (Donkley), Thorneyburne, and
Tarsethope, are amerced in 20<<?. for decapitating a thief without the
coroner.
All accidents, too, are presented by the coroner at the assize
Matilda of Sadberg (near Wark) was found frozen to death at
Poltadan. William Slipertoppe (Silvertop) was cutting down a
certain tree in the wood of Chirdene, and the tree fell and killed him.
Agnes, the wife of John Cupe, was killed by a portion of the millstone
in the mill at Wark, while getting some corn ground there, But US
�the mill was the property of our lord the King, no deodand was called
for.
Huchtred of Linacres had to pay half a mark for refusing to feed
the king’s dogs.
Roger Graunge and William Bene are presented for having fished
in the lake of Hugh of Grendon (Grindon Lough), by the order of
William the Terrier (Terrarius), of Hexham, and against the will of
the said Hugh. And the Prior of Hexham is ordered to produce his
said canon.
Alexander, the miller of Wark, Richard and Gilbert, the millers of
Euelingham, John, son of John de Nithesdale, and Robert Homel
(Humble), have fished at the forbidden times and against assize.
False appraisement of cattle and goods of felons are constantly
noted, and the parties heavily fined.
It is presented by twelve jurors that Allan of Irwin (Irvine ?) hath
so beaten Gerard of Hesilyside that he was thought to have killed
him, and he immediately fled. But the said Gerard still lives; so
Alan may return if he will, but his cattle are confiscated for his flight,
and are valued at 4s. for which the bailiff will answer.
In 1293, matters do not seem to have greatly mended. Margery,
the widow of Adam Davidson, claims land in Shitlington, wrongfully
seized by William de Swinburne, clerk. The indictment is invalid,
for the offender is William de Whytefield, and not the priest. At
this time, Hetherington, near Wark, seems to have been a village of
tolerable size. It is now only a single farm house.
Robert de Bellingham and William de Bellingham, claim lands in
Shitlington, and a right of common there. Their claim is resisted by
John de Shitlington. William de Bellingham claims common right
as a tenant of the Kings of Scotland, and Robert de Bellingham as
tenant of the mill, at Bellingham ; and they produce two charters of
the Scottish King to prove it. John de Shitlington denys that the
Scottish King has now any authority in Tynedale, and wins his
cause.
John de Swynburne is summoned to show cause why he claims
baronial rights and honours in Humshaugh and Haughton. He pro
�25
duces a charter from the King, Edward I., dated the 5th year of that
monarch’s reign, and his claim is instantly allowed.
Thomas and Nicholas, of the mill, at Bellingham, bring an action
against Robert de Bellingham, for lands and tenements held by
Gunnoca of the mill, their grandmother, but they fail to establish their
claim.
Adam Teseman is summoned by Adam Polet, of Wark, for having
struck him on the head, to the effusion of blood. Teseman shews
that Polet intruded himself rudely into his house, and allows that he
kicked him out of his dwelling, but avers he did it not with undue
violence.
Robert de Brameham, brings an action against Richard, the provost
of Waiwick, for having imprisoned him at Waiwick, for three days,
without just cause. It appears that Brameham was passing through
the village of Wai wick, when a dog ran at him, and he drew an arrow
at the dog to save himself, whereupon there rushed out a certain
Alan Messor, with others, and seizing him, they shut him up in prison
for three days and three nights; and for this he claims ten pounds
damages. The jury, however, award him only ten marks.
John, the Chaplain of Newcastle, complains that five of his cows,
valued at thirty shillings, were seized by John de Tecket, and by
Richard le Multergreve. They reply that the said cows were feeding
in the King’s Park, at Wark, for more than a year, unclaimed, and
then they were seized as waifs. The parson replies that he had often
asked for his cows, but could not get them ; but for all that he loses
his cause.
William of Halton complains that David Rannulphson came to his
dwelling at Sewingshields, and carried off the locks, and bars and
bolts of his door, “ tarn in Hamis et Haspis et ligulis ”—and took
away a certain cow’s skin, and finding a measure of wine in the house
(dolium) they made free therewith. He fails, however, in his plea.
Having finished the law pleas, the Judges next proceed to consider
the coroners’ report. William de Bellingham, Robert de Blumville,
Robert de Bellingham, and Matthew de Whytefield, were coroners
for Tynedale. They report on all cases of sudden death, or of death
by violence, in their district.
We have first an evil deed of a Robson. Thomas Robson broke, at
�26
night, into the house Of Ralph Bond, at Newbrough; and Ralph
Bond, arising from his bed, seized his sword, and struck at random in
the dark, about his house, and inflicted on Thomas Robson two
wounds in his thigh, from the effect of which he directly died. The
other burglars escaped, and are not known.
William, the parson of Rothbury, was smothered in a moss hole near
Haltwhistle. No impossible death there, even at the present day.
Michael Lyteskyle (skyte ?) and William Brown, of Bellingham,
Roger of Shitlington, David of the Huntlawe, William Hunter of
Bellingham, Robert the miller of the same, John the Fleschhewer
(flesher or butcher), John Dodd, and others, were indicted for robbery
and murder, at Ninebanks, in South Tyne. Some of the robbers fled,
others are taken, and forfeit all their goods.
Two cases of homicide, with an axe, are reported from Tarsethope
and Hawkhope. And again, we have a murder by a Robson. William
Robson killed Alicia, the daughter of Bernard the miller, and imme.
diately thereafter fled, but in his flight was captured, and taken before
William de Bellingham, the coroner, and thereupon was beheaded.
And the townships of Hunteland, Chirdon, Tarsethope, and Charlton
did not appear in full force at the execution, for which they are
blamed.
John Proudfoot, of Bellingham, struck Richard the miller of that
place with an axe on the head, so that he died five days after.
Proudfoot fled the country, but his goods were seized, and they were
worth 37s. 9<7.
Two cases are mentioned where children are scalded to death. In
both it is said they fell “ in quodam cacabo pleno aqua calida.” And
the value of the vessel was xiid.
Thomas Rome and Juliana, the wife of Robert the miller, fell off a
horse into the Erringburn, and were drowned.
Robert, son of Adam of Whitfield, was killed by a fall of earth or
stone, when digging coals, “ fodendo carbones oppressus fuit sub
terra.”
Nearly a dozen persons are returned as having perished from cold
on the moors, between Haltwhistle and Bellingham.
John Makam, of Keilder, dropped down dead in the market at
Bellingham.
�27
Thomas Scott, of Simonburn, wounded his wife Emma with an axe,
so that she died four days after.
Adam of Thorngrafton, struck Uchtred Lytelskyte (?) with a knife
in the belly, at Wark, so that he died the next morning.
The list of those who had fled the country to avoid punishment for
theft or homicide, is long and curious. In it we find some singular
names, such as Thomas Spalefot, John Dulpin-the-drit, Elyas Blessedblod, Alicia Wyldebarn, William Titmouse.
William, the parson of Corbridge, was taken for a burglary in the
house of Hugh of Burton, and was committed to prison at Wark, and
convicted at the Assize. But as the bishop of the diocese had no
“ attornatus ” there to claim his clerk, the said William was remitted
to prison, from which he afterwards escaped, and fled to the church
at Simonburn, where he was kept till he was claimed by Lambert,
vicar of Warden, and taken to the prison of the Bishop of Durham,
where he soon after died.
Adam Stokoe and Maurice Skot, are captured for the death of
Adam Thompson, in the open market at Bellingham. Stokoe is
acquitted, and Scott acknowledges the deed, but says he was forced
thereto by William de Bellingham, the coroner, who, by many blows,
and much ill-treatment, and by the threat of instant death unless he
complied, constrained him to decapitate the said Adam Thompson,
who had been convicted, by the coroner, of the murder of Emma of
Caphope.
The salmon laws, for the preservation of this noble fish, were
tolerably strict at this date. In 1268, it was presented at the Assize
that a great destruction took place in the waters of the country, of the
salmon, as they ascended the rivers to spawn. It was, therefore,
provided that, from the feast of St. Michael (29th Sept.), to that of
St. Andrew (30th Nov.) no net be drawn or put into the weirs or
pools, and that no one fish in the Tyne, the Wansbeck, or the Coquet,
with nets “ stirkeldis ” (torch fires'?), or any other engines during that
time. And that from the 1st of May, to the 24th of June, no net is
to be used, unless its meshes are large enough for the smelts
(Salmunculi) to get through.
Two more centuries pass away now ere the curtain again rises on
the fair vale of North Tynedale. The Herons had now replaced the
�De Insulas, at Chipchase, the Widdringtons were in power about
Haughton. During this interval, we find William Charlton established
at Hesleyside; and in 1343, Edward Charlton holds the same. About
the end of the fourteenth century, the tower of Hesleyside, the only
towel' above Chipchase, was, probably constructed. Perhaps it was
built by Edward Charlton, who owned Hesleyside, in 1343. One of
the Charltons was at Agincourt, in the suit of Lord de Grey. That
Tynedale was, however, not perfectly quiet during these two centuries
is evident, from the “ Monitio contra famosos latrones de Tynedale.”
In 1512, orders were issued from the Bishop of Durham, for the
capture of certain men, who acted in contumacy towards the Bishop
of Durham’s authority, even after the greater excommunication had
been fulminated against them. Among these were some of the Dods,
Patrick, of Ealingham, Hunter, of Espleywood, and Peter, of the
Greenhalgh.
In the letter of the Bishop of Durham, regarding the famous
thieves of Tynedale and Reedsdale, the name of the Milburns first
appears. In the records of Durham there is preserved an admonition
or monitio against these malefactors. It is a long document, written
in verbose Latin, and gives no very favourable picture of the condition
of Tynedale and Reedsdale at this period, 1498. Not only are the
majority of the inhabitants thieves and resetters of stolen goods, but
the great men of these valleys do protect and hide the thieves from
justice, both for clanship’s sake, and for the benefit of partaking of
their robberies. Nay, the priests of that country are most evil, they
keep their concubines, they are irregular, suspended, excommunicated,
and interdicted clergy, ignorant almost entirely of letters, so that for
ten years they cannot read the words of the mass, as we have proved
by examinations of them, “Uti quibusdam eorum opponentiis expertisumus.” And some are not ordained at all, but merely counterfeits
of priests, and they dare to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice in profane
and ruined places, with vestments torn, ragged, and most filthy,
unworthy of divine worship, as though a contempt of God. And the
said chaplains administer the sacraments to these said thieves, without
compelling them to restitution, and bury them in consecrated ground,
against the laws of the Church.”
The document is imperfect, five leaves are wanting, containing the
�29
names of those interdicted ; but the letter testimonial of Richard,
Bishop of Durham, given in the castle of Norham, on the 25th of
September, 1498, releases from the sentence of excommunication
Sandy Charelton, Crysty Milborne, Howy Milborne, Atkin Milborne,
son of William Milborne, La wry Robeson, Davey Robeson, Sandy
Robeson, Gilly Dod, o' ye Crake (Craig), alias of Smalemoutb
(Smalesmouth), George Dod, Roaly Dod, Barmy Dod, Sandy Dod, of
the Shawe, George Marshall, and Sandy Hunter, on condition of their
abstaining from all theft for the future. And, moreover, that after
the 26th,. of September of the said year, they shall not wear a jacke, or
a knapescall (helmet), they shall not ride a horse of the value of
more than 6s. and viiid., except it be against the Scots or the King’s
enemies. Nor shall they enter a church, or place consecrated to God,
with any weapons exceeding the length of one cubit.”
Was the Sandy Charleton named in these letters the same who, in
1518, is named as Alexander Charleton, of Shotlyington Hall, and who
struck Alexander Elliott (Illot) with a dagger in the left side, below
the arm, whereof Elliott immediately died ? And this ill deed was
done at Espleywood, near Earegirslawg, in Tynedale, on the Eeast of
St. James the Apostle, 1517.
The Elliotts were of Scottish surname, and perhaps the homicide
resulted from a national quarrel. They are recorded in a Cotton M.S.
as being at feud with the Fenwykes of Northumberland, as were the
Armstrongs of Liddesdale with the Robsons of North Tyne ; and Sir
Thos. Musgrave reports that they are “ grown soe to seeke blood, that
they will make a quarrel for the dethe of their grandfather, and then
wyll kyll anie of the name.” We learn from the same report the very
route taken by the Scottish invaders, Elliotts and Armstrongs, &c.,
when they rode a foray into England. “ When Liddisdaill people
make any invacions to the Fenwickes they goe without Bewcastell 10
or 12 miles, and goe by the Perl-fell withoute the Horse Head, near
Keldar, and soe along above Cheapchase. When they goe to the water
of Tyne, they goe by Kyrsoppe Head, and without the Gell Crage,
and by Tarnbek and Bugells Gar, and soe along by the Spye Crage
and the Lamepert, and come that way.”
In the early part of the sixteenth century, Sir Ralph Fenwyke, of
Wallington, was keeper of Tynedale, and he was sheriff of North
�umberland, in 1515, when Edward Charlton of Hesleyside becamJ
bond in £40 for Peter Lambert of Fourstanes, as appears from a
document in the possession of the late John Fenwick Esq., of
N e wcastle-upon-Tyne.
During the reign of Henry VIII. there was almost constant war
upon the Borders, even when the monarchs of England and Scotland
were at seeming peace with one another. It was a war of reprisals,
of constant inroads from one side or the other, and was conducted in
the most merciless fashion.
The inhabitants of Tynedale and Redesdale were evidently little
to be trusted by the neighbours on the East, as well as by their
Scottish foes on the West. These two rivers were closely watched
every night along a line, extending from Haltwhistle in South Tyne,
down to the junction of the Tynes at Warden, and from thence up
the North Tyne to Chipchace. From Chipchace Ford, the line was
carried by Throckrington, Sweethope, and Whelpington to the Coquet
Two watches were appointed to each ford. North Tyndale was con
sidered as beginning at the Nook on the South side of the river, and
at Reedsmouth on the North bank, and extending from thence up to
the Bellyng, beyond which there were then, it is said, no habitations.
In Sir Robert Bowes’ survey of 1542, we have the following descrip
tion of this district:—“ All the said country of Tyndall is of the
parish of Symondburne, and there standeth the parish church of the
same; albeit, they have a chapel at Bellingeam, two or three miles
west from Symondburne aforesaid, to the which chapel the inhabitants
of Tyndaill resort, for the most part, to their divine service, and
there have all sacraments and sacramentals ministered unto them.
And there is another chapel also in the said dale, three miles above
Bellingeam, at a place called the Faw Stone, used for private masses
sometimes.
“ At Bellingeam aforesaid, there is a little town, where all the
inhabitants of Tindaill do meet and assemble at divers times, when
they have any matter or causes in common to treat of among them
selves. And in that town of Bellingeam dwell diverse victuallers,
which prepare and ordayne bread, ale, and other victuals for the said
Tyndaills.
“The houses, buildings, and habitations of the said country
�31
of Tyndaill are much set on either side of the river of North Tyne,
and upon other little brooks and runnels descending into the said
river; in strong places by nature of the grounds, and of such
strengths naturally fortified, as well by reason of mosses and morasses,
which, with great difficulty, may be passed on horseback, as of banks
and cleughs of wood, wherein of olden time, for the more strength,
great trees have been felled and laid athwart the ways and passages,
that in divers places it be only passable by such as know the said evil
ways and passages, and it will be hard for strangers having no know
ledge thereof to pass thereby in any order, and specially on horseback.
In which natural strength and fortifications of such places, almost
inaccessable, the said Tyndaills do much rejoice and embolden them
selves, and when they be afraid, do rather trust in the strength of
such places without their houses, than to the surety and defence of
their houses. And, yet, surely the headsmen of them have very
strong houses, whereof, for the most part, the outer sides or walls be
made of great swair oak trees, strongly bound and joined together
with great tenons of the same, so thick morticed, that it will be very
hard, without great force and labour, to break or cast down any of
the said houses. The timber, as well as the said walls and roofs, be
so great, and covered for the most part with turf and earth, so that
they will not easily burn or be set on fire.
“ There be also, for the most part, a great number of the said
Tindaills houses set so together in one quarter, that a fray or outcry
made in one house may warn all the residue, and upon any fray or
scrimmage made within any part of the said country of Tyndaill,
forthwith the fray and outcry is so raised and set forth in such wise
by all that heareth it, both men and women, that the country will be
shortly thereby warned and assembled to know the cause thereof.
And for the more part if it be for a quarrel or matter of any one of
them against a true man pursuing after his goods spoiled or stolen,
they will all take one part, and maintain such a cause as if it were
their common matter, so that now, for dread of this, almost no man
darq follow his goods, stolen or spoiled, into the said country of
Tindaill.”
Sir Robt. Bowes observes subsequently that, although there is much
arable and pasture land in Tyndale, yet that the country is much
�32
overpopulated, and not cultivated at all, “ whereby' the young and
active people, for lack of living, be constrained to steal or spoil con
tinually, either in England or Scotland, for maintaining of their
lives.”
In his second report of 1550, he continues in the same strain :—
“ That country of North Tyndall is much given to theft, and must be
kept continually in dread of justice. The Tyndalls be so much
inclined to wildness and disorder, and yet the Kings’ Majesty hath no
house of his own within the said country, apt or convenient for the
ordering and correction thereof, save that George Heron, now
keeper of Tyndale, uses his own house of Chipchace for that
purpose, which is a very convenient place for the same. If the
Kings Majesty’s Castle of Langley were repaired, it would well serve
for that purpose. And likewise would the Tower of Hexham serve
if it were made something stronger, and had a house made adjoining
thereto, sufficient for a keeper of Tyndale to dwell in, for when the Lord
Dacre, that died, was keeper of Tyndale, there were certain prisoners
rescued forth of that Tower by night by Tyndale men, by reason that
the Tower standeth alone without the Town, and every man may
come to the door of the prison and talk with the prisoners at all
times.
“ The country of North Tyndall, which is more plenished with
wild and misdemeaned people, may make of men upon horseback and
foot about six hundred, whereof there be commonly about two
hundred able horsemen to ride with their keeper unto any service in
Scotland.
l' Of every surname there be sundry families or graynes, as they
call them, of which there be certain headsmen, that leadeth and answereth all for the rest. And do lay pledges for them when need
requireth, and there be some among them that have never stolen
themselves which they call true men. And yet such will have rascals
to steal for them, either on horseback or on foot, whom they do|resett
or at least receive part of the stolen goods ; or at least make all the
means they may for the deliverance of such thieves. If any of them
chance to be taken, either by composition with the party that owned
the stolen goods, whereby to stop his pursuit, or else to labour with the
officers by all means that they can to acquit and discharge such thieves
�33
from just correction. There be very few able men in all that country
of North Tynedale, but either they have been used to steale in
England or in Scotland. And if any true men of England get know
ledge of the theft or thieves that steal his goods in Tynedale or in
Redesdale, he had much rather take a part of his goods again in
composition than to pursue the extremity by the law against the
thief. For if the thief be of any great surname or kindred, and be
lawfully executed by order of justice, the rest of his kin or surname
bear as much malice, which they call deadly feud, against such as follow
the law against their cousin the' thief, as though he had unlawfully
killed him with a sword.”
Such is the picture drawn by an able hand of the state of North
Tynedale in the middle of the sixteenth century. We make no
apology for reproducing this report here. It has, indeed, been printed
at full length by Hodgson in his wondrous, but, alas, fragmentary
“ History of Northumberland.” But that book, by reason of its
rarity and great price, is inaccessible to many of our readers.
As early as the year 1514 we find from a hitherto unpublished
letter of William and Christopher Dacre to Lord Dacre, the then
Keeper of Tynedale, that this part of the country in no ways belied
its evil fame.
W. and C. Dacre to Lord Dacre, 27th Feb., 1514.
My Lorde, your small frendes of Northumbreland is coming home
eight days bygone, making great exclamación in the contrey, saying
that your Lordship muste make restitución to all maner of parties
complenand owder of the waistlands Tindale, or Redesdale, sens
Branxton Field, butonely that Sr Willm Heron shuld discharge youe
for Redesdale sens the tyme of his entry. My Lord, Tindale in no
maner of wise wold com nowder afore me nor Sir Rauff Fenwyk, for
no maner promesse surance writing ne seall that we did offre them,
but that they ar sworne to gidre ilk one to take oder parte, and as it
is supposed all by the councell of Sir John Heron of Chipches, for
ther was at him Criste Milburne, Jame Dodd, Thomas Charlton of
Carroteth, with odres of Tindale, and has putt the most parte of ther
goodes away. My Lorde, we had daies appointed by them, a fyve or
sex, alwaies trusting to haif, gotten them in by policye, and so they
c
�have drave us from daye to daye, saying they were warned to kepe
them furth, for if they com in ther muste twelf of them be taken and
twelf of the waistland and all to be sent upp to London and there to
be justified, and also that they had knowledge that they must haif a
new officer, and your Lordship to go furth. Wherupon they did
sende us there annswere in writing by Edward Charlton and William
Charlton of Lehall, noon of them comyng to us that daye but onely
they two, and so they all refused to com saufeng thies two personnes,
whiche writing I do sende your Lordship herin closed. And so I
perceiving that the said Edward wold not bring in thoes personnes
that was in his band, but drave us on by colorable maner, and so I
did arreste him, and did send him to the Toure whiche Was upon
Thursdaye, the 16 daye of Fehr., and ther remaynes in Irunes to
your Lordship pleaser be knowein. Also upon the Sondaye afture I
did arreste Thomas Erington called Thomas Peepe, John Erington,
the Angell his son, and Gib. Erington of Greneriche, and did sende
them to the Toure, and there remaynes in I runes in likewise to forder
your said pleaser be knowen.
And upon Tewsdaye last past them of Tindale was gedred, and was
fullye purposed to haif comen to Hexham and to haif broken the
Toure. Notwithstanding I haif so provided for the sure custodie of
the said personns that it is no perill, for I haif sex of your servauntes
lieing in the chamber above the persone (prison), and a watche man
on the Toure top, and also has caused thirtye personnes of Hexham
towne to watcbe nightlye at the iiij quarters of the towne, and so I
truste with grace of God it is out of jeopardie.
My Lorde, I haif sent worde to my broder, Sir Phillip, to be sure
of such plegies and prisoners as remaynes at Morpeth, whiche is
surelye keped and sure watche nightlye for the sure custodie of them,
and so I truste they ar out of jeoperdie.
And as for such plegies and personnes as reinaynes her they shalbe
surely keped in like manner.
My Lorde, now in the light of this mone we shall make roodes, as
well of them of Tindale as the Waistland, of such as will not com
afore us according to your commandment by your writing sent to us
and deliverd by Cristofer Legh.
My Lord, ye shall understand how many personnes is attached
�35
that was named in your billes, and in what person they do remayne
in to your forder pleaser, be knowen by a bill herin closed, and within
shorte space we truste to gett moo that is in your billes.
My Lord, Jak Musgrave tuke Jame Nowble, called Yallow Hare,
and kept him in Bewcastell ij dayes, and has latten him go at the
desire of Clement Nixson. And so upon Thursdaye next corny ng it is
appointed that all thinabitantes of the Waistland shalbe afore us at
Askertone by ther consent, and there to appere, and thoes that does
not appere the plege of that surname to remayne her unto such tyme
the oder of the surname bring in thoes that does not appere, besides
the plegies that remaynes her for good reull of the contrey.
My Lorde, Afor (as for) Rynyane of Erington, whiche is in your
bill, he is gone up to London with my Lord of Northum breland as
his servaunt, and if you would haif him ye may haif him there, for he
was gone to my Lord of Northumbreland er your writing com to us.
And thus the Holye Trinite preserve your good Lordship to your
hertes mooste desire and comforte. At Carlisle this Monday, the
penulte day of Fsbruarii.
Your Son and Servand,
WILLIAM DACRE.
CRYSTOFER DACRE.
[addressed.]
To my Lord Dacre is good
Lordship be this delivered.
Lord Dacre seems to have had no sinecure as Keeper of Tyndale
and Redesdale, if we may judge from a letter, in his own handwriting,
which we have obtained from the Record Office. It is true that this
letter refers chiefly to the misdeeds of the Redesdale men, of whom Sir
Robert Bowes says, “they are less bold, and hardly so misbehaved as
the men of Tyndale.” On this occasion, however, the “ Hieland men of
Rvddesdaile ” seem to have thoroughly emulated the daring of their
brother reivers of North Tyne.
We have, indeed, good proof that n -arly a century before this time
the Redesdale men were given to making free with their neighbours’
goods. In Raine’s “ North Durham ” there is an interesting letter
printed at p. IV. of the General History, addressed from Durham on
�36
the 13th day of November, 1446, apologizing to John Heron of
Chipchase, for that the servants of the then Bishop of Durham had
rescued certain, cattle driven off by the Redesdale men, without previous
application to John Heron as keeper of that part of the country.
Lord Dacre’s lettei’ of 1518 shows that in 80 years little improve
ment had taken place in the condition of the country :—
Thomas, Lord Dacre, to Wolsey, 23rd December [1518]?
My Lord, pleas it your Grace to wete I have received the King,
our Soverein Lordes moost honorable letters by thandes of this berer
White messenger, being date at Greenewiche, the xxv. daye of
Novembre last past, and to me delivered there the xxi. daye of
Decembre instante, wherby I pereive that his highnes is infourmed
that diverse and many haynous murdors, robries, and ryottes ar com
mitted and done within this co untie of Northumbreland, and other
parties therunto adjoining, to the disturbaunce of the peas and
inquietacion of the King our Soverein Lorde’s subjectes inhabitauntes
therof. And of many unlawfull assembles maid by thinhabitantes of
Tindale and Riddesdale, so that they rebelliously shuld have reskued
and takin fro my servauntes certain malifactors by me takin and
delivered to them to be brought to ward. And also slain diverse of
my said servauntes having charge in the conducting of the said
prisoners, wherunto the kinge’s said highnes cann not geve assured
credence till his highness be advertised of the certainte therof.
Wherfor his said highnes has commandit me to make certificate of
and upon the playn troughe (truth) in all the premisses, and to
endeybor me effectually by politique meanes for the repressing of siche
insolent demeanor of the highlandes men, so that upone baldness of the
same haynous dedes they be not incouraged to procede ferther. For
tho kinge’s said highnes is enfourmed that they ar now unite to gidres
and determynet to contenue in ther perverse purpose whiche must be
repressed at the begennyng, orels (or else) it will growe to greater
inconvenientes. And for that purpos the kinge’s said highnes is moche
desirerous not oonly to knowe the certainte of ther demeanors, but
also myne opinyon what I think best to be done therin to thintent
that if the premisses be trew his highness may provide further aide
and assistaunce for me as the case shall require. And ferther his
�37
highe commandment is that I shall take especiall regarde to the
punysshment of ryottes, felonyes, and mayntenors of receptours
which dayly sley and rob the pore comonaltie of these partes. And as it
affirmed som gentilmen shuld be the doers, and som the receivers and
manteners of the said detestable actes. And as it is supposed lak of
dew punysshment, and not executing of the king our said soverain
lorde’s lawes is thoccasion of all thes enormities, whiche if it so were
is the kinge’s comandment to be forsene and remedied. .
My Lorde, pleas it your Grace to be advertised of the reull and
ordre of this the kinge's Countie of Northumbreland, considering it
lieth so nighe ad’yinyng the marchies of Scotland, I trust it be not
ferr out of frame, but oonly in certain poyntes wherof at my last being
above I gaf your Grace a bill of enformacion of the names of them
that was the maynteners. And now I have made your Grace an
oder bill of the same herin closed. And if the same persons were sent
for by privey seall tappere (to appear) in the Starred Chambre, and
the same maturs laid unto their chargies, I trust it shuld doo much
good and also pruffit to the kinge’s highness be reason of their fynes.
And if any of them be not of verey troughe, I am contented to
bere there coostes and chargies that so can be proved contrary afore
your Grace.
And as unto the Highelandes men of Riddesdale trough it was that
I had arrested x. persons of the moost principall and erraunte chefes
emonges them, and them had in the castell of Harbottell by the space
of ij dayes, and sent for the gaoler and the baillifs of the shire with
others of my Tennauntes, all to the number of lxxx. persons, on
horsebak, and sent the said chiefs with my householde servauntes to
Rothbury Gate, vi. miles from Harbottell, to make deliverance of
them there, trusting to me that all peril was past, seing that my
householde servauntes was betwene them and the said Highelandes.
And yet that notwithstanding the said Highelandes men of Riddesdale
had suche espiell and kepit them self secrete and close. And at a
strayt pathe mett my said tennantes, and killed my ballif of Morpeth
and other six persones his neighbors, and took the gaoler and other iiij
persons with hym and had them into Scotland wher as yet the said
gaoller and some oder with hym sittes in preson, wherof I have made
compleynte to the Wardain, and so to the lordes of Scotland, and
�trustes to have remedie therof. Ther is fled into Scotland to the
nombre of xxij of the principal persons and the residue ar fledd in other
parties whei’ as yet they ar nott knowen of. And diverse other
persons that cam to the same effrey I have takin in upon suyrties of
ther good abering. And this is the verey troughe of the matier.
And as for any insurreccions or banding ther is none, nor yet lykly
to be, wherby the kinge’s said highnes shalbe putt to no chargies for
subdueing therof. And I trust the kinge’s said highnes and your
Grace shall here tell that siche diligence shalbe made for the punysshment therof as may be. And yet by fortune the moost principall
man, called Thomas Pott, that the said Insurrección was made for,
was kepit still with my self for examinacion of his robberyes, who is
putt to execucion foi’ the same. And the blessed Trinite preserve
your Grace. At Harbottell, the xxiij day of Decembre.
Yours with hyes serves,
THOMAS DACRE.
[addressed.]
To my Lord Cardinalle’s Grace.
In 1523 the Bishop of Carlisle writes as follows to Cardinal
Wolsey :—
“ Ther is more thefte, more extorcyon by Englis theffs (thieves)
than there is by all the Scotts of Scotland. Ther is noo man which
is nott in a hold strong that hathe or maye have any cattell or move
able in suretie through the bishopryke, and from the bishopryke till
we com within viii. myles of Carlisle, all Northumberland likewise,
Exhamshire which loongeth (belongeth) to your Grace worste of all,
for in Exham selfe every markett day ther is four score or a hundred
strong theffs, and the poore men and gentilemen also seethe them
whiche did robbe them and ther goddys (goods) and dare nother complayn of them by name, nor saye one word to them. They take all
ther cattell and horse, ther corne as they carrye yt to sow, or to the
mylle to gryne (grind), and at ther houses they bedd them delyver
what they will have, or they shall be fyred and bornt.”
In 1523, a tremendous raid was made into Scotland from all parts
of the marches, at the suggestion of the English King. The Earl of
Northamberland, writing to the King, promises to lett slippe
�39
secretlie them of Tindaill and Riddisdaill for th’annoyance of Scotland
—God sende them all good spede ! ” *
In September, 1523, the Earl of Surrey executed sharp justice on
the Tindale men, and amoug those hanged on this occasion was
Jamie Dodd of the Burnmouth in Tarsett, “ the most named theif
of all others.” Probably he was the Jame Dodd mentioned in the
letter of Wm. and Christopher Dacre.
Earl of Surrey to the King, 2nd Sept. 1523.
Plesith it your highnes too be advertised that of late I have caused
six arrand thevys too be attached, twoo of Tyndale, twoo of Ridsdale,
and twoo of other places of Northumbreland, for offences lately
cornytted, and have by your lawes put theym to execution, one ot
them was named Jamy Dod of the Burnemouthe the mooste named
theif of all others, and iiij of thoders were very talle men. At this
same tyme were in likewise attached twoo other thevys of my Lorde
Dacre’s tennantes of Gilesland. And being put in a prison nere unto
where they were taken, iiijxx. of their kynnysmen and frendes of my
Lord Dacre’s tennantes came yesterdaye in the mornyng and brake
the hous and hurte dyvers men and toke away the thevys. The
contre roose upon theym, and toke one of theym that helped too
reskewe theym whome I nowe have in my custody.! And my Lorde
Dacre with all diligence is retourned into his contre too attache a
good nembre of thoffenders, and too send theym to me whome if I
maye have I truste soo to ordre theym that others shalbe afferd too
cornyt like offences againste your Grace. Mooste humble beseching
your Grace too loke upon this poure contre which by the contynnell
murders and theftes comytted and doon by Tyndale and Ridsdale men
and others of Northumbreland and other contres under my Lord
Dacre’s rewle was nere brought too uttir confusion.
And that it may like your Grace if I maye by your high poure
bring this contre to any good ordre tappointe one too have the rule
here aftir me as may contynue the same.
And aftir my poore opinion under your Grace’s high correccion if
* Sir Ralph Fenwick led the men of Tynedale, and Sir William Heron the men
of Redesdale, on this foray into Teviotdale.
! This probably refers to the breaking of Morpeth Gaol, and the captuie of
Henry Yarrow by William Swinburne.
�40
your pleasure bee to have me retourne to your Highnes soon aftir
Michelmas. As I truste your Grace woll have uie too doo it were
convenyente, not onely incontynente tappointe him but alsoo too send
hym hither, considering that it is nowe not fully one moneth too
Michelmas. And if he were here with me a good season before my
departure he shuld the better serve your Grace when £ were goon
eftsonys mooste humble beseching your Highnes too tendre the
premysses, and to advertise me of your gracious pleasure. Herein
written at Newcastell the ijde daye of Septembre.
Your most humble Subject and Servant,
T. SURREY.
[addressed.]
To the Kinge’s mooste noble Grace.
Memorandum. That Nicholas Thornton of Witton took Hodde
Hall, a Riddesdale man, in Northumbreland, when he was riding in
Steling (stealing).
Md. That John Browne of Windyates, Ran.ff Brown dwelling
besides Witton, tenauntes to the said Nicholas Thornton, and Berte
Shawdon, and one man called the gared Taillour, household servauntes
to the said Nicholas, was taken by the Ogles when they all iiij was in
Steling in Northumbreland.
Med. That Sir William Lisle took one John Hall, and Rauff Hall,
Lioll Hall, Riddesdale men, and let them goo.
Med. Also that one Kyssop, servaunt to the said Sir William, was
taken by the Ogles when he was in Steling.
Med. That Hoge Fenwik, of Attercops, kepith and receptith Wille
Aynseley Scott, viij dayes togidres, every moneth.
Item. Thom Brown of the Cotewalles stole the Priour of Tynmouth’s
horse, and his brodre was kepit in prison onto the said horse was
yeven again.
Item. That Thomas Foster Marshall, of Berwick, took William
Cokson, of Ellisden, and one oder Riddesdale men.
Med. That William Swinburn of Captheton took Henry Yurreyof
Tyndall when he was at the breking of Morpeth Castell.
Thomas Langton, of Langle, took certain Tindale men steling, and
let them goo.
On the 3rd of October, 1523, Surrey writes from Newcastle to
�41
Wolsey—“I have also knowledge by men of the contre, bnt not as
yett by the captaynes, that Sir Rauf Fenwyke on hys quarter, and
Sir William Heron on hys quarter, have made two very good roodes,
and have gotten muche insight gear, catall, horse, and prisoners, and
here returned withoute los.” And King James V. of Scotland, writing
to Henry VIII., complains that “ the greatest of all attemptes that
was done against our legys (lieges) during the hele war has been
committed upon our middle marchies be certaine zoure legys, of the
surnames of Doddis, Charltonis, and Mylbornis, under the care of
Schir Rauf Fenwik, who, on the 6th daye of this instant monthe, has
cummin within the groundes of Tevydaill, reft and spoilzid sundrie
gudis, murdyrit five men, and utheris left in perill of deid.”—(4 State
Papers, 666.
On this occasion Sir Ralph Fenwick led a willing army against the
hereditary foe ; but, as has happened to other great leaders, his then
supporters were soon after arrayed against him. Not ten months
after this great and most successful inroad, he was once more in Tynedale on another errand, seeking to apprehend one William Ridley, an
outlaw, and probably a fugitive from the South Tyne. He had with
*
him on this occasion a force of 80 horseman, and appears to have
taken up his quarters in the tower of Tarsett Hall. His presence
there does not seem to have been agreeable to the Tindale men, who
energetically espoused the cause of Ridley. “ William Charlton, of
Bellingham, having 200 of the seyde inhabitants of Tyndail reteigned,
bound, and bodilye sworne uppon a booke to him alwaies to take hys
parte, hering of the sayd Sir Rauff being ther, assembled parte of theim
diligenteley, and freshley set upon the said Sir Rauff, and not onely
put him from hys purpose af attackinge the sayd Ridley, but alsoe
chased the sayd Sir Rauff out of Tyndaill, to his great reproache.”
The insult offered to the King’s majesty, in the person of Sir Ralph
Fenwick, was speedily avenged bv Thomas Lord Dacre, who seized
the person of William Chari eton, and also took, at the Bridal of
Colwell, Roger Charleton, his Brother, and Thomas Charleton of the
Careteth, “ by whom all the in habitaunts were governed, led, and
ready at their commaundment.” He describes these three as pledgeWilliam Ridley was concerned in the murder of Nicholas Rea.therstonhA.Hgh
I
�42
breakers and receivers of the stolen goods procured by the other
marauders, and advises that they shall be forthwith judged and
executed. Immediately after the seizure of these three “ hedesman,”
Lord Dacre commanded the inhabitants of Tyndale to meet him the
next Sunday in Bellingham Church, The Robsons, however, one of
the surnames, held out and would not give pledges, whereupon Lord
Dacre sent out a party that night, seized four of that surname, and
among these Robert Robson, the fourth hedesmen, whom he at once,
and for the terrifying of the others, Justified, or executed, on
the spot.
Lord Dacre had been up to this time in no great favour at Court,
as it was rumoured that he was too indulgent to the Borderers. He
accordingly wrote a long letter of defence to Wolsey on the 25th
April, 1524:—
Dacre to Wolsey, 25th April, 1524.
[extract.]
My Lorde, pleas it your Grace, I received your two severall lettres,
the one dated at Grenewiche the last day of Marcii, and the oder at
your place besides W^estmynster the vj day of this instant monethe of
Aprill, by the contynne wherof I do perceive the manyfolde doctrines
and advertisementes that your Grace doth geve me, as well for con
servation of the Borders, punnyshement of malefactors, contynuall
annoysaunce to our ennymyes, as also for the apprehending of viij.
personnes sent in a cedull within your seid lettres. And albeit that
Sir Willm Heron and Sir Rauf Fenwik, Knightes, be admytted by
the Kinge’s Highnes to be Kepers of Tyndale and Redesdale, no
reasonable annswer or lawfull excuse maid by me for vj. of the seid
personnes inhabiting within Tyndale can be accepted by youi Grace.
But I to be chargied, and they to ay de me for thattaching of theim,
the like wherof hath not hertofore bene sene. Notheless seing this
busy tyme of warr, and that Tyndale is sq, far from me, or fro any
lande or dwelling place that I have or used to dwell in as Herbottell,
and others wherby I cannot with subdein roodes or jorney com
closly upon theim, Eke as ther officers might, yete if it be my chaunce
and fortune to git any of theim (for the whiche I shal bothe sendie
and laubor by all the laufull and honest meanes that I can possible),
�43
I shall attache theim, without it be thay com to common tristes for
good ordor and reformación wele of the realme and use of the marchies
as wardeins hertofore haith bene accustumed, whiche if they so do
must nedes departe again fre, thoughe they had slaine my broder or
frende. And in caace I can gitt noon of theim, yete I shall so do that
my good will and mynde shalbe knawen not deflective what tyme as
I shall ever afore your Grace.
Notwithstanding the contrary surmyses maide to your Grace of the
state of the countrey, assuring your Grace it is in as good ordor, and
rather better, now then it was in at the departure of my said Lorde
Treasaurer. And no robories commytted within his tyme then hath
bene commytted sens my entre, as I wol abyde by. For after the
insurrection of thinhabitantes of Tindale, maide upon the said Sir
Rauff Fenwik their bailif, afore or my Lorde Treasaurer departed no
punyshement or correction being maide for the same. My said Lorde
Treasaurer departed and no way tooke with theim, but oonly that my
seid lorde had communicacion with a parte of Tyndale. And therupon
drew a booke of articles, signed with his hande, taking abstinence
with theim, touching their good demeanor and abering to be kept to a
certein daye, which booke he left with me. And I do rakyn, under
correction of your Grace, if I kepe Tyndale in as good ordor and better
then I founde it in, and, according to the tenor of the seid booke, I
shulde serve no blame. And for proyf of the same, I beseche your
Grace to auctorise siche as shall best pleas your Grace by commission
to make due serche and examynation whidder the premissies of the
countrey Tindale, and attemptates with exploytes done be trew or not,
to thintent the Kinge’s said Highnes and your Grace, may be surely
ascertained therof wherunto ye wol geve credence, thoughe your Grace
take my writing concemyng the same lately as frustrate.
Yours with his serves,
THOMAS DACRE.
[addressed.]
To my Lorde Legate’s Grace.
Wolsey approved highly of Dacre’s activity about the Charltons,
and desired they might be executed at once :—
�Wolsey to Dacre, 11
June, 1524.
[extract.]
And to the residue of the contentes of your said ires depending most
upon the matiers of justice. The Kinge’s Highness moche alloweth
and commendeth your demeanor, not only in apprehending first of
William Charleton, of Bellingham; Roger Charleton, his brother,
Thomas Charleton, of Careteth, with your opinyion for putting the said
William to execucion, for the reasons and consideracions specified in
your said lettres, but also willeth you that, considering the demerites
of the said Roger and Thomas Charleton, ye abiding the tyme
of the sessions, whiche myzt geve a comfort to them and other malefactours, shal see aswel them as suche other as ye may apprehende
and shalbe founde culpable in like offences, to be immediately, and
withoute tracte of tyme, executed according to the ordre of justice,
and their demerites, to the fereful example of other whiche elles myzt
attempt and presume to commytte like offences, which thing don, I
assure you shal be a great furtherance to the good ordre and restfulnes
of those parties. And, therfore, it is not to be doubted but ye wol
regarde it accordingly. Sembably the Kinge’s Highnes being right
wel contented with the execucion don upon Robert Robson, wol that
ye in likewise procede againste the residue of the iiij of the surname
of Robsons, whom ye have in warde for like offences, not abyding
the commyng of the justices of assize, in avoiding the inconvenientes
before specified.
And as touching Sir Nicholas Ridley, in as moche as he, contrary
to your speciall commandement, hath put Henrison, being an errant
thiefe and felon, to libertie, at his own hande without auctorite, and
that William Ridley, being hiskynnesman and a like malefactor, who
is now fled in to Scotland, was, bifore his departure, supported by
the said Sir Nicholas. Albeit that any person shal make sute for the
pardon of the same Sir Nicholas, yet, ye may be sure, the Kinge’s
Grace is resolved and determyned not to graunte or passe the same,
but that as egal justice shalbe administred unto hym if he have so
desired, and that it be not don for any particuler displeasure, as
shulde be upon other malefactors. And, therfore, ye, showing the
same on the Kinge’s behalf to the said Sir Nicholas, may take suche
�45
ordre with hym, that by his meanes, and for the better declaración of
hymself, the said Willyam Ridley may be taken. Wherin if he be
remysse, seing as ye write he may do it, it shal be a more apparant
evident to his own condempnacion. For it is not convenient that
the Kinge’s Grace shulde write unto suche a malefactor, being pri
soner. But that if he trust upon any favor or mercy, he shal so
declare and use himself, otherwise that he may do som thing towardes
the deservyng of the same. And by this meanes, keping him stil in
warde, withoute putting him to any libertie, bayle, or maynprise, ye
shal best fynd the way to attayn the said William Ridley, and he,
nevertheless, to be ordred for his rightful punishement, as ye shal se
to stande with equite and justice.
Fynally, to thintent ye may be the more duely obeyed in exercising
your office in the west marches, I wol sende you by the next post the
Kinge’s commission, conformable to the divice and minute accustomed,
whiche ye sente unto me in that behalfe. Praying you that, according
to the special trust and confidence that the kinge’s highness and I
have in you, ye wol contynue and preserve in this good trayn and
disposición for the quiete ordering of that countrey. Ascertaynyng
you, it is thought by the Kinge’s Highnes, that fynding a multitude
of malefactors, if they shulde amounte to the nombre of xl., whiche
have deserved execucion of dethe, ye shulde not lett ne deferre, by
auctorite of your wardeynship and justice of peax, to porge those
parties of them, and to ordre them, according to justice, withoute
abiding the tyme of sessions or otherwise, wherby ye shal bring the
people there in to such terre and drede, that they shal not dare thus
presumptuously and contemptuously offende the Kinge’s lawes, to the
hinderance and, in manner, destruction of those parties. And, conse
quently, taking pledges of the other parties as ye have don in Tyndale,
and attaching suche malefactors as wol not fynde like pledges whom
the Kinge’s pleasure is ye shal, in that cace punnyshe or put to
execucion, according to the qualities of their demerites. Ye shal
reduce those countreys to as good and peasible ordre as any other
parte of the Kinge’s realme, to your great honor, and to the Kinge’s
singler contentación. And for my parte, I shall in your good doing
the more tenderly and entierly favor and love you, being moche the
gladder to helpe further and advaunce any thing that may be to your
�weale, honor, or profite, like as (persisting after this sort and fashion)
ye shal fynde the experience of the same accordingly. Thus fare ye
hartely wel. At my place besides Westminstre, the xjth day of .Tune,
Your lovyng frende,
T. CARLIS EBORX.
Lord Dacre lost no time in obeying these injunctions, as appears
from the following letter :—
Dacre to Wolsey, 8 July, 1524.
My Lord, pleas it your Grace, to wete, that, according to youre
commandment to me, geven in youre lettre dated at Westminstre, the
xj. daye of Junii last paste, this daye I have kept a Session, and have
put to execution of de he Willm Charlton, of Bellingeham, in
*
Tyndale, and Roger Charlton his broder. As for Thomas Charlton,
of Caryteth, he is this daye acquite and clened of the matier that was
laid ageinst hym, albeit, I have so provided that he is newly indicted
of an oder felony, wherupon (God willing) he shall be reigned within
brief tyme, and in likewise put to execution as the oder two be. Also,
there ar two of the Robsons, whiche were taken with Robert Robson,
of Byndmyrehill [Bimmerhill] casten, and this daye put to execution,
and the thrid Robson is acquite and clened.
And besides thes,
there is one named Percyvell Grene, who was as disordred an
erraunt theif and treitor as any cowthe be, and for many and diverse
felonies by hym committed, fled out of this realme and tooke the
benefice of Scotland, of whome my Lord Treasurer can enforme your
Grace which Grene (for the said treason) is casten and put to execu
tion, and so j ugied to hyng in an irne chayne unto suche tyme as his
bones and synewes rott in sonder. Also (over and besides the said
persons), there ar othre thre thiefes in likewise put to execution this
same daye. And so in all there be-viij. casten and executed. And yete,
I have oders which were not brought furth at this tyme, and as it
shall pleas God to sende us moo, they shall have like ordre according
to their demerites and by thordor of Justice.
And furthre, I shall endevor me, to the beste of all my power, to
accomplish the King, our Soverain Lorde’s, high commandmente and
pleasur, and your Grace is in thadministration of justice and keping
�47
of thees countreys in good and quiete ordre, which., I truste at this
tyme, be in metely good trayn. Trusting to God they shall alwey
increas to better, with good following upon, and keping of Wardein
Cortes and Sessions, which, God willing, shall not be slakked.
Pleas it also, your Grace, upon Tewisdaye, the vth daye of this
month, I sent my broder Sir Philippe Dacre, Knight, into Scotland,
accumpanied with Sir Rauf Fenwyk, Kny‘-, Leonard Musgrave,
Edward Aglyonby, and John Tempest, capteins of a parte of the
Kinge’s garrysons lyeng here, upon his marchees and oders of the
countrey men being in the hole, to the nombre of on M. men, who
rode to their purpose, and brent a grete towne, called Smalholme, iiij.
myles above Kelso, which was not brent of many yeres agoo, and not
only seased miche catall, but also wan miche bagage, and so retorned
homewardes. And in their said retomyng, the Scottes of Tevidale
(proposeing to have maid a jorney. into this realme) did espie or ooste
in their said home commyng. And so the said Tevidale men being
retorned of their purpose foresaid, and accumpanied with the marshe
men (being to geder in the hole nombre mm men) lighted and lay
closely in our men is waye. And so when our men did se the said
Scottes, they in likewise lighted, and with a good and fresh courage
set upon the same Scottes and put them to the flighte, and thereupon
lap on horsbak againe, and chaced the said Scottes, and slew about
xxx persons of them, and took nigh upon cccth, and wan thre
standerdes, notwithstanding that by good fortune a parte of the said
Scottes kept themselfes to geders, and (when our men were skaled in
the said chace) set upon the hynderende of our said chace, and there
slew John Heron the bastard and other vj persons, and took the said
Sir Rauf Fenwyk and Leonard Musgrave, and about xx persons with
theim prisoners, and reskued a parte of Scottes prisoners. Albeit,
thorow the grace of God and by good fortune, our said men being in
the chace (not knowing of the chance hapned behinde theim unto
tyme the crye rose) retorned and left that chace, and not onely chaced
the said Scottes that sett upon the hynder end of our men, but also
slew and took parte of theim, and kept and wan the feild clere
without any further doubte, and so cam home without any more
hurte or damage, which I assure your Grace was a fare fortune, seying
that of trouthe the Scottes were two for one. And fynally, for
�conclusion herein, our men being commen home, have clerely brought
away upon cc persons, and the Scottes had clerely away the said Sir
Rauf Fenwyk and Leonard Musgrave, and about xx persons prisoners
with theim. And over this, Andrew Ker, being Ward ein of the
Middill Marchies of Scotland, and Marke Ker, his uncle, as sore and
evill hurte, insomiche no man trusteth that they shal lyve, and many
other Scottes are evill hurte. And I assure your Grace that this is
the trouthe of the matier.
As for newes of Scotland, surely I have none of effecte, but the
Scottes do persevere and entende to stik at the promisse which they
have made to the Due of Albany, and (as they say) woll in no wise
flyt frome it. As knoweth the Holy Trinite, who ever preserve your
Grace. At Morpath, the viijth night of Julii.
Yours, with hys serves,
THOMAS DACRE.
[addressed.]
To my Lord Legate’s Grace.
Indorsed—“ Reddit viij. July.
On the 23rd July, Norfolk tells Dacre that the execution of the
Charltons and Robsons are better taken by the King and Council
than anything he has done, and has extinguished the rumour that he
favoured evil doers.
In June, 1524, Lord Dacre commanded Sir Ralph Fenwick to issue
the following proclamation at Bellingham Kirk, “ at the messe tyme
on Sondaie —Copie of a Proclamación.
Thomas, Lord of Dacre and Gilleslande, Wardein of all the
diarchies of Englande foranempt Scotl ande, and RaufFenwik, Knight,
Bailif of Tyndale, chargies and commandes all and evry thinhabitantes
of Tyndale, betwene thages of lx. and xvj., personally tappere afore us
at the courte of Wark, in Tyndale, which shal holde on Friday, the
fast of the Nativitie of Sainct John Baptist first comyng, that is to
say, the xxiiij. daye of this monethe of Junii, for good reull of the
countrey. And that all personnes that has founde no suerties as
yete, that they com in and speke with us there to thintent if they
�49
Woll finde sure tie by plegies for good reull to be kept that they be
accepted and takin as other good and wele disposed men of Tindale is.
And if we and they agre not, and that they woll or cannot finde
sureties for good reull, they to depart frely againe without let or
disturbaunce. And if ther be any person that pleges are laid for
which e standes in any doubte or feres to com in, we wol they com
neie the towne and send to us for assourance, whiche they shall have
graunted fre to com and goo for all thinges, saving good reull to be
kept. And that no person be absent at their perilles. At Sawarde,
the xvj. daye of June, the xvj. yere of our Soverain Lorde’s reigne,
King Henry the Eight, undre my seale and signe manuall.
Sir Ralph had, therefore, soon been released after his captivity by
the Scots.
In March, 1524, the Tynedale men and Scots combined, made a
terrible foray on their own countrymen. William Franklin writes
from Durham to Cardinal Wolsey >—
“ Please yr most honorable Grace to understand upon Tuesday last,
the xxviiith of Marche, the Hyland theeves with banyshed men, to the
numbre of foure hundred men, accompanyed with many Scotts, came
to Ingoo and Kirkheton, in Northumberland, and overrane the
countrey too within eight myles of Newcastell, when they slew seven
menne out of hande, and hurte dyvers moo in perell of dethe, setting
fyer on the saide townes, and drove away all the goodes and cattail
lying in ther way. The saidde theeves be nowe in such comforte and
audacitie, bye reson, it is bruted (bruited) here, bye the Lord Dacre’s
freends, that he shall have the hooll (whole) governaunce of the
countreye, that theye bee much more ryotouse than ever they wer
by fore.”
Within a month after this inroad, in April, 1524, the arm of the •
church was had recourse to, to arrest the disorders of Tyndale; for
Cardinal Wolsey then caused an interdict to be laid on all the
churches of Tyndale, though Redesdale, as being then tolerably quiet,
was exempt from censure. On the Scottish side, the Archbishop of
Glasgow published, at the same time, an interdict and excommunica
tion against the outlaws of Liddesdale, couched in the strongest
possible language. The document may be read at full length in
V State Papers, 417, but we forbear to reproduce it as it is in the
X
�Scottish tongue, and would lose much of its force by translation.
We only give a short extract of this very lengthy proclamation. The
worthy Archbishop does not spare his lawless countrymen. “ All
the malesouns and waresouns that ever gat warldlie creatur sen the
begynning of the warlde to this hour mot licht apon yaim (them). I
curse thair heid, and all ye haris of thair heid; I curse thair face,
thair een, thair mouth, their neise, thair toung, thair teith, thair
craig, thair schulderis, thair breist, thair hert, thair stomok, thair bak,
thair wame, thair armes, thair leggis, thair handes, thair feit, and
everilk part of thair body, fra the top of thair heid to the soill of
thair feit, before and behind, within and withoute.”
But the
Borderers seem to have reverenced neither church nor King, for
Willm. Frankelyn, writing to Wolsey in 1524, tells the Cardinal—
“ After the receipts of your Grace’s sayd letter we caused all the
chyrches of Tindaill to be interdicted, which the theves there
temerariousiy disobeyed, and caused a Scots frere (friar), the sayd
interdiction not withstanding, to mynistre them theyre communion of
his facion, and one Ector Charlton, one of their capeteynes, resaved
the parsonnes dewties and served them all of wyne.” He adds “ The
saying of Sir Edward Todd, priest,” concerning the order of Tynedale
men on Good Friday last past, viz., “that on that day Hector
Charlton declared in his presence, and that of Sir John Aide, priest,
that he, Hector, did no thing sithen the departure of the Lord Dacre,
his master, but that it was his pleasure and commandment; that
Hector kept company with Gerard his brother and other felons of
Tynedale, to espy bourdes that he may cause the Lord Dacre laugh
when he comes home ; that Hector, with Henry Pluck and Nicolas,
took the Blessed Sacrament forth from the sepulchre in Bellingheam
Church, and one firkin of wyne and 800 breads, and carried the same
into a place called Tarsett Hall, but next day brought them back to
Bellingham, where they got a Scotch friar to give the Sacrament to
a number of evil disposed people.”
The tradition of the country tells us that this was Hector
Charlton of the Boure, on Chirdon Bum, the ancestor of the late
Charlton of Reedsmouth. Proclamation was made at Bellingham
and elsewhere against giving food to the outlaws, and for
kepying of thare wyffes and servantes from marketsand most of
�51
the outlaws seemed disposed to come to terms, stating that if their
own lives and those of their pledges given into the hands of the
sheriffs were respected and made safe, they would then submit to the
King. “ Thys aunser dyd all the theves of Tindaill give except
Gerard Charlton, and one Ector Charlton, two great capeteynes
amongst them, which Ector said that he was servaunte to the Lord
Dacres, and that he never wolde submyte himself to the tyme he
shold se the sayd Lord Dacre.”
The severity of Lord Dacre’s rule in North Tynedale, raised
against him a host of enemies. Amongst these, no doubt, were the
“ surnames ” which had suffered so severely from his energy in Tyndale;
and when he was tried at Westminster Hall, in 1536, his patronage
of Hector Charlton of the Boure was brought in accusation against
him. A copy of the articles of accusation is still extant in the possession
of Sir John Swinburne, of Capheaton, and has been printed by
Hodgson, Pt. 3, Vol. I.—Art. XIV. “ Item, in proof of favour borne
by the said Lord Dacre to thieves consorting there in their mis
demeanour, two thieves were taken in Gilsland, beside Lanercost, with
the ‘maynore’ of certain cattle by them feloniously stolen and delivered
to the order of the said Lord Dacre, which at the request, of Hector
*
Charleton, one of the greatest thieves in those parts, familiarly and
daily conversant with the said Lord Dacre, the said thieves, were by
the said Lord Dacre delivered to the said Charleton to be ordered at
his pleasure, which Hector Charleton did ransome the said thieves,
and suffered them to go at large for twenty nobles of money, which
thieves and their friends have delivered and paid the same sum to the
said Charleton with goods stolen from the King’s true subjects.”
Lord Dacre, in his answer to this accusation, replies, that the two
men after being long in prison were found not guilty, and that there
upon he delivered them to William Charlton and Hector Charleton,
“ and whett thaie dyd with them, the sayd lorde knowithe not.” The
date of these articles of accusation is not accurately known, probably
they were drawn up some years before Lord Dacre’s trial, in 1536.
We are not able to fix the exact date of another exploit of the
Tyndale men, referred to in the XVIth article of accusation, whereby
it seems that one Cokes Chari eton had been taken and confined in Lord
Dacre’s castle of Morpeth, but was rescued by a party of the Tyndale
�52
men, no doubt of his own “ grayne,” who “ brak the oastell of Morpeth
on the nyghte, and the prisone wher the sayd theff with two felons
were and took hym out.” It was, probably, on this occasion that
William Swinburne, of Capheaton, retook Henry Yarrow, of Tyndale,
one of the escaped felons.
In 1525, Sir Ralph Fenwick was again roughly handled in North
Tyndale. Early in the year, he was left in Tarsett Castle with 100
men to keep rule in the country. Similar garrisons were placed at
Chipchase and Hesleyside, as appears by the following letter of Eure
to Wolsey, dated May 16 th :—
Sir William Bulmer and Sir William Eure to Cardinal Wolsey,
\§th May, 1525.
Pleas it your grace to be advertysed. We dyd wryt a letter untoe
Master Magnus, in Scotland, toe move the Counsell of Scotland that
thei shulde nott ayd nor assist the Kynge’s rebelles of Tyndall within
Scotland. And he hath mayd us answer, thatt he wyll so doo.
And foi' his advice concernying the abstynence of werr, and if he had
eny knowlege their of. And how at we and owr deputyez shulde use
our selfes their in, and so, by his advise, their is abstynence taken for
xv. daez. At the last day of trew, as was thought by our deputyez,
the Scottes was helye mynded, and with greatt company, and our
deputyez was enformed thay entended to have doyne thayme sum
displeasor. Wheruppon thay have shewed untoe us thatt they have
called uppon the gentilmen of the countrye, and of the commitye of
the saym, as use and custom hathe beyn. And thai wyll nott ryse
with thayme, so thatt thai er nott able in nombre to meytt the Scottes,
wherfor, we suppos, thatt the countrye thynkes thatt we be nott
able persons to rewll thayme, besechying your Grace to tak no dis"
pleasor with us, tho we, accordyng to owr othez and trewths untoe
the Kynge’s highenes and your Grace, discharge owr selfes toe
ascertaign your Grace the trewthe. We thynk thatt itt is necessary
yf it myght stand with the pleasor off the Kynge’s highenes and
your Grace, thatt thei wer sum noble man sent intoe this countrye,
and loeth we wer seyng, your Grace is so good untoe us as ye be,
thatt we shulde nott serve the Kynge’s highenes and your Grace as
we shulde doe. For and if we shulde call of the countrye, we thynk
�thatt thei wyll nott serve us. And as it shall pleas your Grace,
heir in we beseche yow, thatt we may know your pleasor how as we
shall ordre ourselfes, and if we shuld have eny more spekyng with the
Scottes, if thai require uppon us or of owr deputyez as thai dyd the
last tyme, whether we shall take eny further abstynence or nott.
Also, we beseche your Grace, that we may know your pleasor
whether thatt suche ordre as we have taken for Tyndall shall contynew
or nay, which ordre is this—We have left Sir Rauf Fenwic, and on
hundreth men with hym, att Tercett Hall. And att Chipchaice, a
gentelman and fyftye men with hym ; and att Heslesyd, on other
gentelmen and fyfty men with hym, so thatt their remaneth styll in
their garrysons att the Kynge’s charge two hundreth men.
Sens the tyme thei war layd, the Tyndaill men nor the Scottes
theiffs hath nott rydyn nor doyn no great harme, whatt thei will do
if the garryson be discharged we know nott. And, except the con
trary commandement com frome your Grace, we entend to discharge
the garryson uppon Setterday, the xxvijth day of May.
And the Armystronges of Liddersdaill, and the theiffes of Ewysdaill, is joned with the Kynge’s rebelles of Tyndaill, and is commyn
untoe thaym, and kepeth all company to gedders which is thowght
shall mak mony dispoilles of the Kynge’s subjectes, assoyn as the
garryson shalbe discharged. And thus we be enformed, as our Lord
knoweth, who, preserve youi’ Grace. Frome Segisfelde, the xvjth day
of May, by your humble servandes.
W. BULMER.
WYLLM EURE.
[addressed.]
To my Lord Cardinall, his good Grace,
hast post hast.
On the last day of May he was attacked there by the Scots and
Tynedale men. “400 Scots, with the rebelles of Tynedale, came to
Tarsett Hall and Hesleyside, where the Kynge’s garrisons lay, and
there took 55 horses and prisoners, and kylled and brount. And on
the 13th June, came 600 Scotsmen, with the rebelles of Tendale, and
took forty men and forty horses, and brount and kylled divers men.”
�I
54
I
J
■
Eure and Fenwick upon this made a raid upon Tyndale, on the 7th
of July, and the untoward result of this inroad is detailed in the .
following letter.
Sir William Eure to Wolsey, Sth July, 1525.
Pleas your Grace, I wentt unto Tendale, the vij. day of July, and
Sir Rauffe, of Fenwyk, wentt uppe to syde of Tyen waters, and I of
the tothers syde. And he desyryd me that I wolde latte hym have
iiij”- of my nayrcharys [mine archers]. And I putte my unckyll
Hewystes [Eustace?] to hym, and iiijxx- hayrcharys, and John, of
Hogyll [Ogle], and fyfte sperys. I bruntt thayr Chellis, and toke
frome thayme all that was in the sayde Schellys, and thayr cattell, of
that syde of the waters that I was of. And where Sir Rauffe, of
Fenwyk, was, the thevys sett upon hym at astrate, and thayr hathe
tayken my unckyll and ten of my servandes, and sclewe one. I
sende unto the bysshoppryche of Duresme to my fryndys, that was
nexte jonyng unto Hexham, to company me att the said jomay and
thayr come to me iij0- of thayme. And, pleas your Grace, the gentyll
men of the cuntre hadde lever have the favor of the thevys then to
tayke any of thayme. I besyche your Grace that I may knawe your
plesor howe I schall euse me in theys partys. I contenew the garryson
men in waygis to I knawe your gracios plesor thayrin, and remayns
here my selffe at Hexham. I schalbe gladde to euse me acordyng to
your commandmentt, to the best of my pore, as long as I leyffe, as
knaweth God, who preserve your Grace. Wrytten, at Hexham, the
viij. day of July.
- Your Servandes, att command,
WYLLM EURE.
[addressed.]
To my Lorde Cardinall’s Grace,
This be delyvered.
We believe it was in the month of June, 1525, that Tarsett Castle
was burnt and destroyed by the united forces of the Scottish side,
joined by the men of Tynedale.
In 1528, William Charlton, of Shotlyngton, and Archibald Dodd,
with two Scotsmen—Harry Noble and Roger Armestrong—rode a
�foray into the Bishoprick of Durham. The two Englishmen Were
here acting in union with their hereditary foe, and the inroad upon
the county of Durham can only be characterized as a thorough act of
treachery. It confirms the saying of a writer of the day, that these
Border thieves would be Englishmen when they will, and Scotsmen
when it suited them best. In all probability Noble and Armestrong
were “broken men” outlawed from Liddesdale for acts of violence,
who had taken refuge among their foes. The party, nine in all,
entered the county of Durham on Monday, January 21, 1528, and
advancing to the neighbourhood of Woolsingham, seized the parson of
Muggleswick, and bore him off a prisoner. On their return they
broke into three houses at Penhamside or Penwoodside, and robbed
and spoiled the “ gear ” therein. The country rose in pursuit.
Edward Horsley, the bailiff of Hexham, led the fray.
“ The water
of Tyne was that night one great flode, so that the sayd theves couth
not passe the same at no fordes, but were driven of necessitie to a
brygg® within a lordship of myne called Aydon Brygge, which by my
commaundment was barred, chayned, and lokked faste, so that the
sayd theves couth not passe with their horses over the same, but were
constrained to leave their horses behynde them, and flee away a foote.
And upon the same a servaunte of myne, called Thomas Errington,
ruler of my tenantes in those quarters, persewed after theyme with a
sleueth hounde, to the which pursuitte of theyme, after the scrye in
aid, came to theyme one William Charlton with dyverse other
inhabitants of Tyndaill to helpe to put down those rebellious persons,
which forwardness in oppressing mallifactors hath not been sene aforetyme in Tyndaill men.” (Northd. to Wolsey, 1528). William
Charlton, of Shotlyngton, or Shitlington Hall, was slain in the pursuit
by Thomas Errington. James or Harry e Noble shared the same fate,
and Roger Armstrong and Archie Dodd were taken and executed.
William Charlton’s body was hung in chains at Hexham, James
Noble’s on Haydon Bridge, and the others were treated in the same
way at Newcastle and Alnwick. The other five outlaws escaped.
The old hall at Shitlington was standing till within the last few years.
Six “ Tyndaile theiffis ” were hanged at Alnwick in April of this
year. The severity of this chastisement seems to have produced
tranquillity on the Borders for some years. In 1535, the Earl of
�56
Northumberland met the “ hedesmen ” of the surnames of Tynda,ill,
at Hexham, and took bonds for their good behaviour, and that of
their retainers. These bonds are still extant. In 1536, however, the
restless spirit of the Borderers was again inciting to acts of violence.
Sir William Eure writes to the Cardinal, on the 26th of July of that
year, from Hexham—“The rebels of Tyndale make some ‘besyness’
in Tyndale wher ther dwellings was, and in no place els they melle
or dois hurt; ther abydings is 'in a place called Lushburn Howies
(Lewisburn), a marvellous stronge grounde of woodes and waters.
They begyn to be weary of their troubles, and maks offers, ther lyves
safed, to submytt them to the Kyng’s pleasur. I thynk yf Sir Rauffe
Fenwyke, havynge the Kyng’s garryson in conducte at hys owne
appointment, had done hys dewtye, the said rebelles at thys time had
made large proffers of submission.” Sir William Eure was probably
no friend to Lord Dacre, for along with this letter he sends the testi
mony of Edward Charlton, of Tyndale, which goes to prove that Dacre
was wont to give private warning to the Bells, to shift for themselves
whenever he made an inroad on the Tyndale outlaws. This was just
before Lord Dacre’s trial; and, after the trial, it would seem from a
letter of Norfolk to Cromwell that he had sounded Lord Dacre about his
again taking charge of Tyndale, but it was so much against Dacre’s
mind that, as Norfolk says, “ he had rather lose one fynger of every
hand than to meddle therwith.”
In 1535, Eure writes to Wolsey, on the 26th July, from Hexham
—“I send you a bill of the saying of Edward Charlton. Edward, of
Charlton, hearde Sande Corbell (Corbett?) say, as they rode to Tendall,
that my Lord Dacre had ordered Sir Chris. Dacre to warn John Bell,
of Bowesbank, and John Bell, of Clowes, Geyll Hob, and Peter
Tweddell, and two of Stapletons, to shift, as they were complained of
by the gentlemen of the bishoprick, especially with the Baron of
Helton. Chr. Dacre gave warning to Bell’s wife, that if they went
to the rebelles of Tynedale, it should be the worse for them. Lang
Jim Harmstraw said openly at Carlisle, when he was sitting at drink,
that Sir Wm. Eure and Sir Ralph Fenwick should have other things
to think of than lying in the garrison there. None should bear rule
there except Lord Dacre. John, of Charlton, said openly that Sir
Christopher Daker would give them warning, or be rayd of them.”
�57
We now come to the matter of the murder of Roger Fenwick,
keeper of Tyndale, or, as he is elsewhere called, one of the bailiffs of
Tyndale. It is difficult to arrive at the truth regarding this case;
but in a letter dated 7 April, Newcastle, 1537, John of Charleton,
Rynny Charlton, and John Dodde, are named as the murderers of
Roger a Fenwick, late keeper of Tyndaill, “and are recepted, ayded,
and assisted now within the realmes of Scotland, but most of all by
the Abbat of Jedworth.” The Abbot of Jedworth, according to the
Iter of Wark, held, in 1279, extensive possessions in north Tynedale,
and especially at Ealingham, one of the holdings of the Charltons.
Edward and Cuthbert de Charlton seem also to have been mixed up
in this transaction, and above all, John Heron, son of John Heron, of
Chipchase. The accusation against John Heron seems to have rested
on the testimony of a single individual, Gerrard or Jerrye Charlton of
the Hawe-hill, otherwise called Jerrye Topping, who was subsequently
taken by Sir Raynold Carnaby, and thrown into Wark worth Castle.
He seems to have given private information against John Heron to
Norfolk, and the latter made ready to ride upon Tyndale if the King
of Scots would do the same upon Liddesdale. Also that “ he would
do hys best to put order for Tyndale with usyng all the policies I can
t’apprehend Edwarde and Cutberte of Charleton and John Heron’s
sonne, which John I require your good lordshippe may be secretly con
veyed hither, and so delyvered to th’officers of my house to be by
them conveyed to me to Newcastle, to be ordered according to justice
I wolde he sholde be hear on the 20th daie of Sept, and conveyed with
a hode on hys hedde, and so secretly kept by the waye that no man
sholde knowe him unto hys delyveraunce; which wolde be also in the
nyght, bycause I have many pledges of Tyndale and Ryddesdale here.
For and it were knowen he were here, I shold neyther take hys soring
nor others that I would have. And if it be not known in the ‘ flete ’
whither he should go, but conveyed in the nyght, the better.” John
Heron hereupon fled into Scotland, and was present at the meeting of
Lord Wharton and Lord Maxwell at the Baittinge Buske on the 6th
of Nov. 1538, when Wharton being apprised of his presence, laid an
ambush to take him prisoner, but was dissuaded from his purpose by
Lord Maxwell, who feared that such an act would be an occassion of
strife. After all, John Heron was probably guiltless of the blood cP
�68
Roger Fenwick, The matter engaged the attention of the PrivyCouncil long after this date. In 1542, the Council reports that the
accusation against John Heron rests on only one person, Jerrye
Charlton, who is known to be a thief and a common malefactor, and
wjwse father had been punished by the Carnabys for his offences.
“ We consider with it the malice that is betwene the same Camabys
and John Heron, with the favour that is between the Camabys and
Wharton, and that it may be that Charlton being brother to one of
your rebels and outlaws for the death of Roger Fenwick, knowing
this displeasure to be between the Carnabys, Wharton, and John
Heron, hath throwen out this bone as it were to please the Warden,
and thereby at length to labour the restitution of his brother the
outlawe.” (5 State Papers, 202.)
The Robsons were, likewise, at feud with the Grahams, or Graemes,
in the Netherby district. There is a North Tynedale tradition, that
the Robsons once made a foray into Liddesdale, to harry the Grahams,
and drove off a flock of their sheep down into North Tyne. Unfor
tunately, the sheep proved to be scabbed, and communicated the disease
to the other sheep of the Robsons. Upon this, the latter made a
second raid into Liddesdale, and took seven of the most substantial of
the Graemes they could lay hands upon, and hanged them forthwith,
with the warning, that “ the neist tyme gentleman cam to tak their
schepe, they war no to be scabbit! ”
John Heron was actively concerned in the pilgrimage of grace, or
rising in the north in favour of the old religion, in the autumn of
1536; and a most curious document has recently been found, regarding,
his conduct towards Carnaby on this occassion. It is printed in the
first volume of the “ Priory of Hexham,” recently published by the
Surtees Society. Heron was an ardent follower of Sir Thomas Percy,
the leader of one of the armies in the pilgrimage of grace. The
Percies hated Sir Raynold Carnaby, because it was thought to be by
his influence that the Percy estates were diverted from Sir Thomas
Percy, the next heir in proper descent. Sir Ingram Percy besieged
the house of Adderstone, near Bambrough, in the belief that Sir
Raynold Carnaby was in it, and he swore to Thomas Foster then,
that “by Goddes hart” he would be revenged of Sir Raynald Carnaby.
And when Thomas Forster desyred to knows what offence the said Sir
�Raynold had done unto him, and wherein he had offended hym, he
saide, “ Sir Raynold Carnaby hath beyn the distruction of all our
blode, for be his meanes, the king shal be my lordes heyr.”
It is well known, that the Canons of Hexham resisted, by force of
arms, the Commissioners who came to take possession of their
monastery. These commissioners were Lyonell Gray, Robert Col
lingwood, William Grene, and James Rockeby. On arriving at
Hexham, they found the gates of the monastery closed, and the
battlements lined with armed men. Among them was a canon, the
master of Ovingham, a cell of the Hexham house, and he stood on
the walls in full armour, with a bowe bent with arrowes, and to the
summons of the Commissioners, the stout churchman answered,—
“ We be twenty brethren in this house, and we shall die all, or that
you shall have this house.” The Commissioners were foiled in their
errand, and for a brief space the Monastery of Hexham was saved.
John Heron was most anxious to raise the men of Tynedale and
Redesdale for the Pilgrimage of Grace, and by the paper recently
printed by the Surtees Society, it is evident that he wished to com
promise the Carnabys in the same rising—for rebellion we certainly
do not call it, any more then we should speak of the rising, of 1745,
by such a name.
John Heron accordingly called on William Carnaby, at Halton
Castle, near Corbridge, on Sunday, the 15th of October, 1536. The
canons of Hexham had held their monastery, by force of apns, from
the 28th of September to the 15th of October, and Heron advised
Carnaby to remain quiet (knowing him to be of the King’s party),
and he would do his best to bring about an accommodation. Upon
this, Carnaby—the father of Sir Raynold Carnaby—opened his heart
to Heron, who, directly after, rode back to Hexham, apparently to
promote this favourable issue. He, however, on his arrival did
nothing of the kind, but prevailed on the monks to grant certain
fees, under the seal of theii- convent, to certain men of Tynedale,
such as he should appoint, to about forty shillings yearly ; and said,
that he doubted not but by the help of his son-in-law, Cuthbert
Charlton—who had married his daughter—and of one Edward
Charlton, his uncle, with such other friends as they would make, but
all the whole country of Tynedale would live and die in the quarrel.
�60
The canons agreed, but did not then seal the documents, because they
desired John Heron to take a message to William Carnaby, before
they should join themselves with thieves, which they would be loth
to do if they might otherwise save their lives. The message was
to desire William Carnaby to prevail with his son, Sir Raynold, who
had brought down the King’s letters, that he would intercede for their
lives with the King, on condition of their giving up the abbey. Heron
returned to Halton, but gave none of this message to Carnaby, while
he sent word secretly to the Tynedale men to attend and meet their
keeper, Roger Fenwick, at Chollerford, upon forfeit of a noble for
each man that was absent. The next morning, he returned to Hex
ham, and told the canons, that the only answer he had got was that
Sir Raynold Carnaby was determined to’ have the heads of four of
the canons, and four of the men of Hexhamshire, to send up to the
King, and other favour they would not get. “ Whiche when they
hard, said, better it was to defend theyre lyves as long as they myght,
than wilfully to kill theyme selfes, and so prepared theyme selfes and
Tyndal men to make them as strong as they coulde.” Heron had
thus gained a day for raising the men of Tynedale, having sent word
to them overnight. He then came back to Carnaby’s house, at Halton,
to dinner, and sate down quietly, saying, “ It is a good sight to see a •
man eat when he is hungry,” and so passed the time till dinner was
half done. And, as he was at dinner, one Archie Robson, of Tyne
dale, came to one John Robson, his cousin, and told him all how
Tynedale men were gathered, and by what warning. John Heron
then called Carnaby into another chamber, and told him that the
canons of Hexham were prepared for the worst, and that they would be
at his house straight away, and that the Tynedale men were partakers
with them. Carnaby was evidently now in a terrible fright, and said
his friend John Heron had given him very short warning, to know of
such a purpose, and not to declare it till he had half dined ! . Heron ad
vised him to fly immediately to his own Tower of Chipchase, for, if he
remained at Halton, all the goods in the world would not save his life. .
His design seems to have been to compromise Carnaby, and to frighten
him out of Halton, so that he might lay hands on Sir Raynold
Carnaby’s goods and plate, which he knew were in the house. So
*
poor William Carnaby took horse, and rode off with John Heron
�61
towards Chipchase. In. the meantime, the men of Hexhamshire, who
had risen in defence of the canons, and the Tynedale men, who had
joined them after the preceding night’s warning, were at St. John Lee,
close to Hexham. A servant of Sir Raynold Carnaby’s was riding
past St. John Lee, and fell in with the Tynedale men, and guessing
their intention, he spoke them fair, got away, and dashed off at full
speed towards Halton, to warn the inmates and to assist at the
defence of the tower, where his master’s money and plate were. By
a chance, he fell in with Heron and William Carnaby on their way to
Chipchase, no doubt somewhere on Stagshaw-bank. Signing to
William Carnaby to come near him, he whispered in his ear—“ That
traitor thief that rideth with you hath betrayed you, and it will cost
you your life yet.” He then advised him to speak fair to Heron,
and to beg him to keep in the rear, to turn back those of his own
friends who might pursue Carnaby, and that the said servant would
guide him to Chipchase. Heron fell into the snare, he turned back,
and Carnaby, putting spurs to his horse, dashed off towards Langley
Castle, where he arrived in safety. John Heron then returned to
Halton, and demanded of Carnaby’s wife if her son, Sir Raynold, had
any money. She answered yes, and delivered to him the casket,
with such money as Sir Raynold had. And when he had got the
casket into his hands, one Arthur Errington, kinsman of Sir Raynold
Carnaby’s took it from him by force, and, together with seven Tyne
dale men, who had promised to take his part, rode away as fast as
their horses would bear them. And John Heron seeing that his pur
pose was void, that the casket was out of his hands, made after them
with all the speed he might, and put a handkerchief as a pennon upon
his spear point, and followed after the casket, all to the intent that
the rest of them that was broken in the foray and were seizing the
goods, should have recovered the casket for him. He, however, could
not overtake Errington, and that night rode home to Chipchase.
Another letter has just come to light, regarding Heron’s relatives,
Edward and Cuthbert Charlton. It seems that the King had granted,
by letters patent, certain annuities to these two Tynedale leaders,
whereupon the Council for the Marches writes to his Majesty that
these two men were the chief stirrers up of the country, to its great
wasting and decay, and that the granting of annuities to them would
�only encourage the others to further misdeeds. They aver that these
two were unwilling to take oath to observe the peace before the keepers
of Tynedale, and that they had sworn to support the cause of the
canons of Hexham against the King, and were retained for that pur
pose by a yearly fee of twenty nobles a-piece, as the Council was
credibly informed by Roger Fenwick, the keeper of Tynedale. The
Council thereupon demand that the Charltons should be arrested, and
punished according to their demerits, and that a garrison of three
hundred soldiers should be laid in Tynedale. Two months after this,
Roger Fenwick was murdered, and John Heron and the Charltons
were suspected of the homicide. A letter of the Tynedale men is
preserved, and has just been printed by the Surtees Society. It is
signed by five of the Charltons, four of the Robsons, two of the
Dodds, and one of the Milburns. Among these is John Robson, of
the Falstone; Charlton, of the Bower; and Rynion Charlton, who,
in 1537, was charged with the murder of Roger Fenwick. In June,
1538, Edward and Cuthbert Charlton came both in to Sir Reginald
Carnaby, “ and under assurans, and they spak veray reasonably, and
said they wold be glad to mend with the forst of their countrey, and
what way were taken with the rest they wold not fale to followe the
same. I perceyve by Edward Charlton, and Cuthbert, there is
somewhat that stykkes in their stomakkes, whatsoever they say, for
they are always in a dreddure, and fere for ther lyves.” Carnaby
then goes on to say, that Edward Charlton offers his son as a pledge,
and that he will send him to me at Hexham, “ for there is no mo of
his name sofiyshent that woll pledge for him, but aether himself or
his son, or one Henry Charlton, his son in law; for there is dyvers
of the Charltons that was in his band that dare not nowe pledge for
hym. He wold be glad to lay in one of his tenantes, and that
me thynk is not mete.”
Sir Raynold Carnaby, who is here mentioned, was the second son
of William Carnaby, Esq., of Halton, and was married to Dorothy,
sister of Sir John Forster, warden of the Middle Marches. He
appears, with Widdrington, to have been appointed deputy keeper of
Tynedale, but neither appointment seems to have been much to the
satisfaction of the Earl of Norfolk. Writing, in 1537, to Cromwell,
he says of his two deputy keepers—“All the contres under my
�63
commission be as well ordred as I would wish, save only Tyndale
and Ryddesdale, wich be under the governaunce of Wedrington and
Carnaby, and they so far oute of frame that perforce I must ride
those parûtes. Wedrington wolde fayn doe well, but surely it is not
in hym. Carnaby is so fered of his person that he dothe nothing but
kepe the house. Men doe moch doubte of hys hardiness, having yet
showed no parte of manhode sithe his first coming hither. I wolde
they were bothe in Paradise.” (5 State Papers, 104.)
Carnaby had, it seems, taken pledge of the Tynedale men, and had
forwarded these pledges to York, to exchange them for others
previously there. Tunstall says—“ Here lyeth for Tyndall at this
time two of the most actyve men of all Tynedale ; one ys called John
Robson of the Falsestayn, who promised my Lorde of Norfolke, as I
understand, that he wolde doe much against the rebelles, th’odir ys
Gibbe of Charleton, who made lyke promise as I hear say. But
nowe, when tyme is to do it, they lye here as plegges (pledges) sent
hyther by Sir Raynold Carnaby’s letters to change and lowse th’oder
for a seson, as hath been alwaie accustomeyd. I founde a faute with
the bringer of them, servaunte to Maister Carnaby, that his msister
sent these two who of all other been most mete to have been at home
to résisté the rebelles, who answered me that yf those, and other mo
of the hedes of them, were out of the country yt sholde be better
rewlyed ; by which aunser it semyed to me that hys maister trusted
not these men.” (Tunstall to Cromwell, 5 State Papers, 122.)
Carnaby promised to do his best against the outlaws of Tynedale
after the full of the moon, when it was thought they would be busy,
and we presume it was in executing this promise that he was
surprised and captured by the Tyndale men. We have no details of
when or where he was taken ; but Eure, writing in July, 1538, to
King Henry VIII., speaks of the “ wilful attemptate of the
inhabitaunts of Tyndale, and the takyn of ther keper, Sir Raynold
Carnaby.” The whole letter is devoted to this important matter, no
doubt a most serious offence in the eyes of the King. “We have
travailed,” says Eure, “ by all our dexterities with the Tin dales, for
the delyverance of the sayd Sir Raynold and others taken with hym.
Albeit they, wanting grace and obstenatly persisting in the mayntenaunce of their evill dedes, have resolutely aunswered that they will
�64
not departe with the sayd Sir Raynold nor any of the other taken at
that tyme for any persuasins or fere of danger that may followe. And
unless they all have their pardonnes, as welle theye that slewe Roger
Fenwick as those that attempted to take Sir Raynold Carnabye, they
wyll in no wyse restore the sayd Sir Raynold nor any taken in hys
companye, and that they wyll not tryste nor meate with any man in
Northumberland to that they see William Carnaby and Lewis Ogle.
Over this, one Jerard Charlton, called Topping, presumptuously sayd
that he had given oon aunswer at Harbittell which he thought might
serve us, and it should serve us, which aunswer was as is above
declared.” Eure further declares that he and his friends have used
every means to obtain the release of Sir Raynold Carnaby, both by
the offer of large sums of money to his keepers and to others who
might influence the parties detaining him. Sir Raynold Carnaby,
however, does not seem to have been long a prisoner ; for soon after
we learn that his deliverance was effected, and that he had the satis
faction of capturing, and conveying to Warkworth, Jerard Charlton,
who had given to Eure the insolent answer above recorded. Nearly
about the same time, however, about thirty of his retainers were
taken by the Armstrongs at the Busy Gap, on the Roman Wall, and
were carried off into Liddesdale. William Ratcliffe, who apparently
had married Carnaby’s widowed mother, writes about this mishap as
follows :—“ To my son, Sir Renald Carnaby, Knt., these delivered.
You shall percieve that on St. James’ Even, the 24th of July, came
Liddesdale men to the Barony of Langley, to the number of six score,
and laid them at the ‘ Busie Yappe,’ and sent forth 7 men and seized
6 oxen. At 6 o’clock in the morning, the scrye rose through the
country, and them that was next went forward in all haste. Richard
Carnabye and Gilbert was in Hayden Brygge the same time, and
tooke with them all that was ready, and that was upon a 26 men,
and because there was so few men that seized the cattle they tarried
not of the Constable, but thought to have rescued or he had
convoyed, and made speed forwarde that they mought, and rescued
the cattail, and chased the drivers to the bushments (ambushes), and
or our men wist the Scots brake upon them, and. took them all, both
horse and man, saving two persons ; so the Scot s rode in all haste
with their prisoners. Had they tarried half-ai 1-hour longer, the
�65
Constable, with others, was coming with all speed they mought, and
would have been a party to the Scots, the which, if you and them
Scots had met, would, I trust, have been spoken to London, but the
Scots had better hap than so, and that I repent. The Scots have
killed a proper man at the same time of the Barony of Langley, one
Alexander Peerson. Son : if there be no remedy for Liddisdale, the
country is in a schreved state, and true men that is oppressed for fear
of their lyves, and lossing of their goods, say plainly they will leave
the countrye.” With a view to put down these disorders, Eure,
Widdrington, Sir Cuthbert Radcliffe, and Robert Collingwood drew
up most stringent rules for the suppression of ill doings in Tynedale.
These articles are printed at full length in 5 State Papers, 133, and
recommend that all the inhabitants of Tyndale shall be removed to
the inner parts of the realm, except those who took part in the
murder of Roger Fenwick or the seizure of Sir Raynold Carnaby,
and that all who remain in Tynedale after a certain date from the
issuing of this order shall be deemed rebels and outlaws to the King.
Inroads were to be simultaneously then made by the wardens of the
different marches upon the rebels, and no person was to relieve them
or sell them anything in the market towns. Strong garrisons were
to be left in various places in Tyndale, as in Chipchase, Swinburne,
Gunnerton, Simonburn, and Haughton.
In 1542 William Charlton, of Hesleyside, is reported by Sir Robert
Bowes and Sir Ralph Ellerker as possessing the only tower in the
country of Tyndale.
*
The limits of Tyndale did not therefore come
below the Nook on the south side, and the confluence of the Reed and
North Tyne on the north side, of the latter river. William Charlton
was in 1552 appointed a commissioner for the enclosure of the Middle
Marches, and in 1554 he executed the deed of agreement with William
Charlton of Lee-hall, of which we are enabled to produce a copy. We
do not know in what degree of relationship William Charlton of Lee-hall
stood to Charlton of Hesleyside, but in all probability they were
cousins, and were in dispute, not only about the boundaries between
the Lee-hall property and that of Hesleyside, but also about the manor
* The Tower of Hesleyside, which stood at the west end of the present mansion,
was pulled down at the end of the last century, during the minority of the late
owner of Hesleyside. It closely resembled the towers at Cockle Park and Halton.
E
�and house of Hesleyside itself. This dispute was settled by arbitration
on the 27th of February, 1553, the arbitrators being George Fenwick
of Harbottle and Brinkburn, a commissioner for the enclosure of
the Middle Marches, in 1552; John Shaftoe, of Bavyngton; John
Hall, of Otterburn, another of the commissioners in 1552, keeper of
Redesdale in 1 Eliz., having fifty light horsemen of his name, and
named in 1586 as one who could give information about the Borders;
Thomas Featherstonhaugh, a gentlemen of the Middle Marches in
1550; Percival Shaftoe, of Ingoe ; and Thomas Hall, of Munkridge.
Their award, setting out boundaries which still exist, is now exhibited,
and is as follows :—
Thys indenture mayd at the Leehall within Tyndall, the xxvii. day of the monethe
of February, and in the viith year and reyaghn of our Soverayn Lord Edward the
Syxt, by the Grace of God Kyng of England, France, and Ireland, defendor of the
faith, and in earthe of the Churche of England and alsoo of Ireland the supreme
head immediately under God, Betwixt Wyll’m Charlton of Hesleysyd, within the
liberties of Tyndall, gent., of the on party, and Wyll’m Charlton of the Leehall
within the said liberties, gent., upon the other party, Witnessz that wher thear
was a travers sewt and controversye betwixt the parties aforsayd for and concemynge the howsse and manor of Heslesyd, the howse of the Leehall, with all the
purtenances to them belongyng or in any maner of wyse appurtenyng, either party
beying bound unto other by obligación in the somme of ccZi. as by the same dothe
mor planlye appear, for to abyd the order, award, arbitrement, and end of Georg
Fenyk of Brenkburn, gent., John Shafto of Bavyngton, esquyer, John Hall of
Otterborn, the yonger, gent., Thomas Fatherstonhaughe, of Haydenbrig, gent.,
Percevell Shafto of Inngho, gent., and Thomas Hall of the Munkkarage, gent.,
arbiters, indyfferently elected and chosen as well by the on party as the other, who
hath ordred, judged, demyd, and awarded that Wyll’m Charlton of the Leehall
shall have and enjoye to hym, his ares, executors, and assyghnees, for ever mor,
without any encombrawnc, chaleng, trowble, vexaycion, or perturbacyon of the
sayd Wyll’am Charlton of Heslesyd, hys ares, or assyghners, or of any in hys
name or hys ares name, all the plac and manor of the Leehall, with all maner
of growndes erable and unerable, medos, woodes, pastures, commones, hedgys,
dyches, with all other easmentes, comodites, and purtenancys, beying lyeing
and conteynyng within the limites and bowndes folowyng, that ys to say,
bownying and begynning at a gray stone in a clowghe syd under a plac
called the Crowkhyl, and so forth north-est unto the dych of the Rydynghy’ll clos,
and so up northe as the dyche thereof is casten, and then turnyng at a grey ston
lying in the Rydynghyll clos dyche, and so forth streght north west unto the end
of Tawnton hyl dyche, then northe unto the end of the sayd dyche, and from the
dyche northward streght ower unto the ryver of north Tyne, the sayd W’m Charlton
of the Leehall, hys ares and assyghners doying therfor all maner of dewties
and services unto the cheff lord dew and accustomed. And further, that the
sayd W’m. of the Leehall shall give and grant unto the sayd W’m Charlton of
Heslesyd, and his ares, all his ryght, title, clame, and chaleng of the howse and
manor of Heslesyd and of all the inheritanc that is or hath been therto belongyng.
And also all his tenant ryght as well of the Kyng’s landes of the Lemallyng, that
is to say, of the Crowkhyll, the Anthonhyll, the Hyghe clos, the Bridgford, as of
other, with all other that he hath or had ever any interest, title, clame, or chaleng
unto withoute any trowble, chaleng, vexacyon, or perturbacyon therof, to be had or
mayd in any wyse (except befor excepted) from the sayd Wm. Charlton of the
Leehall, his ares and assghnz, unto the sayd Wyll’m. Charlton of Heslesyd, his
ares and assighnez for evermor. And that the sayd W’m Charlton of the Leehall
�67
shall delyver unto the sayd W’m Charlton of Heslesyd all maner of writinges,
evydenc, and prescripcions that he hath belongyng or appertenyng unto the ineritanc
of Heslesyd, or of any land or tenement, part or parcell therof, immediately
F &t the sealyng of this presentes befor and in the presenc of the sayd arbiteres, and
for tru performanc of the same to be truly observed and keped in every article and
behalff as is befor mencyoned, eyther parti to other enterchaungeably hath sette
their sealies with the sealles of the sayd arbiters the day and year abovesayd. Witnesz, Hob Hall of Raylees, Percivell Clennell, Clemet Hall of the Ralees, Heue
Charlton of the Hallhyll, John Wylkyson of Hetheryngton, Rawff Charlton of the
Leehall, Oswyn Charlton of Elyngham, John Charlton of the Blaklow, Edde Mylborne of the Dunsted, Anthon Mylbome of Roses bowr, Xpe Charlton of Newton.
*
[Four seals broken away]
[In dorio.J Also we awarde that Wyll’m Charlton of the Leehawl shall have fre
passag at all tymes wyth all hys cattelles somer and wynter to pastur upon the
Kyngs grownd, such lyk as other the Kynges tenants doth therr, and also fre
lycenc to passe and repasse throwghe the Kynges grownd for getting of his eldyng,
and this to belong to the Leehall. Also we awarde that Wyll’m Charlton off
Hesleysd shall lett unto Wyll’m Charlton of the Leehall halffe the Leykhyl......
his farme payeng doyng hys-dewtie with firmers by yer v s.—Willm. Charlton, of
Hesilsidd.
George Fenwick
John Schaftow.
John Hall.
P’cyvell
Shaftoo. John Hall, [sic in both parts.]
By the privilege of passing through the King’s grounds, the Lee-hall
property became extended in a narrow slip up to Kingswood, and so
continues to this day. William Charlton, of Lee-hall, died in 1561,
and we produce the probate of his will, running as follows :—
Jh’us In the name of God, Amen, the yeare of our Lord God 1561 I Wyll’m
Charlton of the Leehall holl in mynde and memorye and seyke in my body.
Fyrst I bequeathe may sawll to Almyghtye God my only maker and redeamer, my
bodye to be buryed in the churche of Saynct Cuthbert in Bell’inham, with my
mortuaire dew and accustomed to be paid. Item, I geve to Dorathye my wyf the halff
of the myln and maynes dependynge or belongynge to the Leehall, with meadowes,
inures, and pastors or any other thinges belonginge to the foresayd Leehall, and my
sonne Wyll’m to content hym with the other half. I make my wyff and Wyll’m
my sonne of this my last wyll and testament my full executores. Also I wyll that
my mayster George Heron and John Hibson, with my brother Nicholas Crawhall,
vicar of Hawttwysle, to be supervisors, and if they refusse ytt than I wyll that
Uswen Charlton, and Wyll’m Charlton of Bellingham, and John Robson. Lyonell
Mylborne to take in hand & to se that my wyff and my sonne take no wronge, but
to maynteayn them in their right as far as they may. Wryten the last day of Aprill
by theiss wytness & recordes—Ussen Charlton, John Robson, Lyonell Mylborne,
Christofor Borne, Sande Eliot, Chuthbert Eliot, Leonard Stauper, with other mo,
and Wyll’m Holede, sone to John Holde, and Wyll’m Bell, curat of Bellingham.
[Memorandum of probate at Corbridge by the said executors, before Wyll’m Garnett,
Commissary in Northumberland, of James [Pilkington] Bishop of Durham,
17 June, 1561. Seal, pointed oval, the royal arms crowned.............. sta...............
OLESIASTICAS.]
* In 1568 the heirs of Gabriel Hall had lands in four places in Redesdale, Randal
Hall had land at Raylees.—Edward Charlton, of the Hawe-hill, a headsman of
Tindale, gave bonds to Sir John Forster at Chipchase in 1559. (Sadler’s State
Papers.)—John Wylkinson of Hetherington was bailiff of Tindale in 1559.—John
Charlton of the Blakelaw was a headsman and bond-giver in 1559,
�In 1556, Roger Heron, brother to George Heron, of Chipchase,
was taken prisoner by some of the Elliotts and Crosiers, of Liddesdale,
while riding towards his brother’s house in the dusk of the evening.
In 1559, Sir John Forster received the office of keeper of Tyndale
from Marmaduke Slingsby. The latter had appointed a day for the
headsmen of Tyndale to appear at Hexham, and to give bonds for good
conduct, but this summons was disregarded. Sir John Forster seems
to have had more influence.
“When I demandyd to have such
delyvered in to my handes as were nomynate in the sedult (schedule),
that you sent me in your last letter, of the which nombre I have
received in the preson of Hexham, ix persons presoners. Ande
Jarrye Charleton of the Hawehill—he is delyvered home upon
bande.” (1 Sadler’s State Papers, 613.) Sir John Forster sum
moned the “ hedesmen” to meet him at Ohipchase the next Sunday,
and on that day the greater part, if not all, appeared, and gave
bonds for keeping the peace, &c. We have fortunately, in Sadler’s
State Papers, a list of those summoned by Slingsby, and we may
conclude that the same men, with others, obeyed Sir John Forster’s
summons to Chipchase. This list is curious, as it gives the names
of many who appear in the documents before us. It is as follows :—
“Charlton of Hesleyside; Jasper Charlton of Hawsose, [Hawkhope
Hill] ; John Charlton of Blacklawe, or his son; Edward Charlton
of the Hall Hill; Hector Charlton of the Boure; William Charlton
of Lee Hall; Edward Charlton of Lordner Burn, [Lanner Burn] ■
Wylliam Charlton of Bellingham ; . . . . Charlton of Dunterley;
Symont Robson of Langhaugh ; Andrewe Robson of the Bellynge ;
Hobb Robson of the Fawstone [Falstone] ; John Mylborne of Roses
Bowere; Edward Mylborne of Dunterde ; Mychell Dodde of the
Yerehaugh; . . . . Dodde hys sonne ; Jamy Dodde of Roughsyde;
.... Hunter; . . . . Hunter; Christofer Hogge ; Willie Hogge;
Matthew Nysson.
[Addressed] To my loving friends John
Wylkynson and Wyllie lanson, balyves of Tyndall, gyv theys and
yourselfes that same daie.”
On the same papei' is a memorandum in the handwriting of Sir
John Forster :—That Jone Hall of Otterburn, Launcelot Tysley of
Gosforth, William Charlton of the Leyehall, John Hall of Brayneshaugh, William Charlton of the Bellingham, and Clement Hall of Burd-
�69
cheppes (Birdhope), is joyntelie and severally bounde to the right
hon’ble th’Earle of Northumberland and Francis Slyngsbye, keper of
Tindall, in c. and xl1' for the personal appearance of Jarret Charlton
of the Howehill at Newcastle the xvth daye of January next cornynge.
The bonde is taken to the Queen’s use. His appearance is in Robert
Young’s house in the Newcastell.” (p. 615.)
In 1565, August 5th, Rowland Forster writes from Wark to the
Earl of Bedford, Governor of Berwick :—“ The Laird of Hakupe
(Hawkhope), whose name was Charltoun, and who dwelt in Tynedale,
was slaine on Friday last in Jedwart Forest in stealinge. Ane tuik
him on the heid and dang out all his harnes.” (Original in Record
Office). Jasper Charlton’s daughter and heiress married George
Gibson, of Stonecroft.
In spite of Sir John Foster’s activity the Borders continued to be
a scene of rapine andconfusion. George Heron, of Chipchase, writes
in this year to Sir John Forster—“ The Liddesdaille menne are
disorderlie, and are aided by the menne of Tyndaill and Ryddesdaill.
Lyddesdaill is myndit to mayk misorder and to do the evel that they
can in these quarters. I knowe theye cannot doe it withoute the helpe
of some, both of Tyndaill and Ryddisdaill, as they have had even now
this last Fryday at night, when they dyd tak up Swethope. For one
parte off them went away thorow Tendall with the prysoners, and
another thorow Ryddesdail with the nowt. And theves off Tyndaill
that wis goyng estellying [a stealing] into Scotland, found the Scotts,
with the nowt lying in the shells [shielings] at Uttenshope, in
Ryddesdaill att fyers, and had gotten, meate bothe for horse and
man at som of Ryddisdaill. And when the theves off Tyndaill
perceved the Scotts were at rest, they stale the nowt, from the Scotts,
and in the morning when the Scotts mest the nowt they dyd com
into Reddisdayll again, to boro a dog to folio, and then theye got
knowledge whyche of Tynedaill had the nowt.” (p. 627.)
Towards the end of the same year, we find that several of the Tyndale
men were in the goal at Hexham. How they escaped from thence
the following letter shows.—“ Nicholas Eryngton to Sir John
Forster, Hexham, xviith daye of December, 1559. Plesyth ytyoure
mastershyppe to be advertysed that George Herone, of Chypchace, dyd
sende Edward Charlton, Harrye Charleton of the Larnerbume, and
�one John. Charlton of Thornybourne in Tyndall the sayd George Herone
sent theys said three prisoners into Hexham, to the Queene’s Majestie’s
gavel [goal] there. This yt is chansyd that the xvth daye of this
instaynt, the gaveler and all the reste of presoners, be what meanes I
canne not tell, nor no other that can be knowen of sertentye, but that
the saide three Charltons and Thos. Mylborne (alias Thome Headman),
with xi Scotts pledges, that was comandyt to ward for surety of John
Eryntoun is goyn the said nyght, and all the dorrys left opyn, savyn
the outter doore, which is the newe house doyr that Mr. Slyngsbye
buildit, whayr the gaveller laye nyghtlye for the safe guard of the
sayd presoners, as I thoughte was most surest.”
The gaoler of Hexham was perhaps a reclaimed outlaw himself, and
the ties of flesh and blood proved too strong for him.
The calendars of State Papers of the early part of Elizabeth’s reign,
do not give us much information regarding this portion of the Borders.
In 1586, however, a long and grievous list of outrages committed
by the Elliotts and others, of Liddesdale, was forwarded to London.
These complaints chiefly refer to raids into Redesdale, and injury done
to the property of those of the surnames of Hall and Read. John
Hall, of Otterburn, and Edward Charlton, of Hesleside, are named in
this document among those who can give information “ If they be
sworne or strictly examined.”
In 1593, a furious raid was made into Tyndale by the Liddesdale
men, headed by William Elliott, of Lawreston, the Laird of Manger
ton, and William Armstrong, of Kymonth (Kinmont Willie). There
is a long correspondence on this subject in the Public Record Office,
but, unfortunately, the details of the assault and inroad are nowhere
given. Still, the foray must have been of a most serious character
to produce so much angry correspondence. Sir Robert Bowes, then
an old man, was at that time in Edinburgh, and he seems to have
experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining an interview with the
King (afterwards James I. of England), to represent the grievance.
The King excuses himself from seeing Sir Robert, on the plea that
“ he is muche grieved with payne in one of his teeth drawing, thereby
greate swellinge in his face, and a troublesome lompe in his mouthe.”
We have obtained copies of the whole of this correspondence, but it
is not of sufficient interest to warrant its insertion here.
�71
Ten. oi' eleven years later North Tyndale was again a scene of blood
shed and ruthless rapine at the hands of the Laird of Buccleuch, Sir
Walter Scott. Buccleugh, as he is generally termed, seems to have
made repeated inroads into North Tyne, and to have directed his attacks
chiefly against the surname of Charlton, partly on the score of
ancient grievances existing between them, and partly in consequence
of recent and ample reprisals made by them in Scotland, Buccleugh
was in Tyndale, in 1594, on a similar errand, but he then burned only
one house against his will, though he “ laid fyre to two to gitt
entrance.” (Original in Record Office). One great raid was made on
the 17th, of April, 1597, when he burnt ten houses in Tyndale, and
took the lives of thirty-five persons. (Raine, [p. 43] bill against
Buccleuch). Two letters, are in print (Transactions of Border Club,
pp. 14 and 16) which throw considerable light on these outrages. The
first is from Sir John Carey, Marshall of Berwick-upon-Tweed to Lord
Burghley, and dated Berwick, June 13, 1595, wherein he says :—“I
did synce by my letter of the 29 of Maye certifye your honnor of
Buckcleughe, howe he came into the Myddle Marches to a
place called Grenehugh (Greenhaugh), a wyddowes house in Tyndalle,
where he sought for certen of the Charletons; and not fynding
them he burned the house and all the corne in it and all that
was therein, and so went hys way ; he had in his company, as it is
reported, very nere three hundred men, and within eight days after
ward he came in agayne to a place called the Bowte hill, and killed
foure of the Charletons, very able and sufficient men and went his
waye, threatning he would shortly have more of their lives.”
In a second letter, dated Berwick, July 2, 1595, Carey refers again
to this subject:—“ In your honour’s letter you write in a postscript
that you would gladly understande the quarrell that Buccleughe had
against the Charletons, and that the Sesforde had against the Stories,
which would be too long and tedious to sett down at large ; but for
that your honour requyresyt, I will as briefly as I can sett it downe.
First the quarell Bucclughe hath to the Chareltons is said to be this :
Your honour knowes long synce you heard of a great rode that the
Scottes, as Will Harkottes and his fellowes, made upon Tynedale and
Ridsdale, wherein they took up the whole country, and did very neare
beggar them for ever. Bucclughe and the rest of the Scottes having
�72
made some bragges and crackes, as the country durst scarse take any
thing of their own, but the Charletons being the sufficientest and
ablest men uppon the Borders, did not only take theire own goodes
agayne, but also so hartned and perswaded theire neyghbors to take
theires, and not to be afraide, which hath ever synce stuck in
Bucclughe’s stomach, and this is the quarell for taking theire own.
Mary ! he makes another quarell that long synce, in a warr tyme, the
Tyndale men should goe into hys countrye, and there they tooke his
grandfather and killed divers of his countrye, and that they tooke
awaye hys grandfathers sworde, and would never lett him have yt
synce : this, saith he, is the quarell.”
The Tynedale outrages, by Buccleugh, were followed by a more
peaceful time. James, of Scotland, succeeded to Elizabeth, the two
kingdoms were united, and it was no longer the interest of the re
spective sovereigns to stir up one side of the Borders against the other,
In 1605 final articles were agreed upon between the English and
Scottish Commissioners for the pacification and disarmament of the
Borders. All who were noblemen or gentlemen and unsuspected of
felony or of theft were allowed to retain their arms, but all the
common people were ordered to put away all armour and weapons, as
well offensive as defensive, as jacks, spears, lances, swords, daggers,
steel-caps, hagbuts, pistols, plate, sleeves, and the rest, upon pain of
imprisonment.
In May, 1607, Edward Charlton, of Hesleyside, was commissioned
to select and raise one hundred men from the outlaws of Tynedale
and Redesdale, for service in Ireland.
The Scots and English, however, had not as yet wholly learned to
live in peace. In 1611 an inroad was made from the Scottish
side, of which we have fortunately obtained the full particulars from
hitherto unpublished documeuts in the Record Office. We do not,
however, know the cause of the deadly feud, but the subjoined docu
ments show the truculent conduct of the Scottish reivers. Leaplish
is high up the North Tyne, directly south of Mounces.
The, Earl of Cumberland to Lord Salisbury, %8th May, 1611.
My verie honorable good Lord,—This xxviijlh of Maie, at vij. at
night, I receaved letters from Sir William Fenwicke, one of the
�Deputie Commissioners for the1 middle shyers. The copies whereof
I have herewith sent to your honorable Lordshipp, wherein is certyfied
a cruell and disloyall outrage, nowe late comitted and executed by a
companie of those bordering Scottes, men of the ill Clann oi' Surnames,
upon an Englishman, some myles within England. I shall not neede
wryte more of the informacons that are yet come to me of this matter,
in that I send to your Lordshipp the true copies thereof, as I have
receaved them under Sir William Eenwicke his hands. And because
they are Skottish men, dwellinge within Scotland, and came thence to
effecte this wicked deed, I have writt to my Lord Chancelor of Scot
land and his associates, to take some present course for the appre
hending of the offenders, untill his Majestie shall give further order
for the redresse hereof. Soe have I writt to Sir Will"1- Fenwicke
and others, the Commissioners of our syde, to certifye to my Lord
Chancelor the true informacons of the facte, and the names of the
persons offendinge. This, I thought, for the present was fittinge. I
shall now intreat your Lordshipp, as you shall thinke good to
acquainte his Majestie herewith, as I may be advertysed from your
Lordshipp what his Majestie’s pleasure is, I shall further doe herein
which I will not faile to execute to the uttermoste of my power, soe
longe as I shall live. In the meane tyme, I shall take order with the
Commissioners of our syde, to be verie watchfull and carefull for the
apprehendinge of anie suspected, and knowe of those if they shalbe
fownd to lurke on our bounders or liberties. I trust I shall not neede
to trouble your Lordshipp further at this tyme. And soe, with my
hartiest comendacons to your good Lordshipp, I leave you as myself
to Godes proteccon. Londsbrough, this 28th of Maie.
Your Lordshipp’s verie lovinge and assured
Friend-, ever to command,
FR. CUMBRELAND.
[addressed.]
To the Right Honorable,
my singuler good Lord,
The Earle of Salisburie,
Lord High Treasurer of England.
�Sir William Fenwick to the FarI of Cumberland, 26 th May, 1611.
Right Honorable and my verie good Lorde,
My humble dutie remembred. I am sorie I have cause to
informe your Honor of the moste horrible and greevous outrage that
ever hath beene donne in my tyme within these partes, either before
his Majestie’s entrance into this kingdome or since. Upon the 25th of
this instant May, Roberte Ellett, of Readhugh, his brother William,
with manie more of their name and friends all Scotchmen, Lancelote
Armestrong, of Whithaugh (called the yonge Larde), Alexander
Arm estrong, of the Roane, his brother, with manie of their frendes
being Scotchmen, in all, about the number of three score and tenne
persons, fiftee of them upon horsebacke, and the rest footemen, all
furnished either with long peeces, pistoletts, or launces, came to
Lyonell Robson’s howse, in Leapelish, six myles within English
grownde, and there cut downe his dwelling howse with axes which
they braught with them. And with their peeces killed one Lyonell
Robson, of the Smaleburne, and a woman called Elizabeth Yearowe,
of Stannisburne, and shott and hurt dyvers more, both men and
women, with the shottes of their peeces. Whereof that youi' Honor
may be better satisfyed, I have sent a list of the names of the parties
slaine, those that are hurte, and such as were shott through the
clothes, yet escaped ; and lykewyse, the names of soe manie of the
principall offendors, as in this shorte tyme I could get notice of.
No we, your Honor is acquainted with the informacon I have
receaved, which, I thought fitt in my dutie, to make knowne to your
Honor, being Lord Lieutennant and Lord Commissioner for the
Middle Shyres, by whose meanes I must onely hope this greevous
offence may receave exemplarie punishment, that the lyke may never
hereafter be donne by anie of his Majestie’s subjectes. Soe leaving
this cause to your Honor’s good consideracon, I humbly take my
leave.
From Bellingham, in Tiviedale (Tyndale), this 26th of
Maie, 1611.
Your Honor’s humbly to be comanded,
WILLM. FENWICKE.
�75
(Inclosure to Sir W. Fenwick’s letter of 26th May, 1611.)
A List of the names of such as are slaine and hurt, according as they
are seene and viewed.
Lyoll Robson, of the Small Burne, shott in at the harte with a
single bullott, and slaine.
Elizabeth Yearowe, of Stannishburne, shott with twoe bullettes
through both her thighes, the right thygh broken asunder with the
shott, and slaine.
Walter Robson, of the olde syde, hathe his left arme broke asunder
in twoe places with twoe bullettes.
Thomas Robson, of Yearowe Hall, shott with one quarter shott in
the fillettes of his backe, an other quarter shott in his haunch, and
another great bullott shott through his Breeches, and mist his
skinne.
Mane Robson, wyfe to James Robson, called Blackehead, is shott
with fyve haile shott in her breastes.
Elizabeth Robson, wyfe to Jeffray Robson, beinge great with chylde,
is hurte verie sore in the head with the stroke of a peece.
Rinyon Robson, of the Bellinge, is shott with a bullett and an
arrowe out of a long peece, and hurt in the handes.
Roberte Charleton, of Bought hill; Francis Robson, of Stannish
burne ; William Robson, of Yearowe Hall; Henrie Robson, of Well
Haugh ; Anthonie Robson, of Crosse Hills; Rinyon Robson of
Fasteane ; James Charleton, of the Bough Hill; and John Dod, of
the Ryding, are all shott with bullettes through their clothes, but
not hurte.
WILLIAM FENWICKE.
A List of the names of the Offendors, being all Scottishmen.
Roberte Eliott, of the Red Hugh.
William Eliott, brother of the said Roberte.
Roberte Eliott, of Copshawe, and his brother Frauncis.
Roberte Eliott, of Dunnlebaire, and his twoe brothers, Gawen and
William.
William Elliott, called Rinyons Willee.
Roberte Eliott, called Martin’s Hob, of Pricking haugh.
�Christofer Eliott, sonne to Roberto, of Pricking haugh.
Lancelot Armestronge, of Whithaugh, called the yonge larde.
Alexander Armestronge, of the Roane, brother to the said
Lancellot Armestronge.
Francis Armestronge, of Whithaugh, and his sonne Lancellot
Armestronge.
Roberte Forster, called the yonge Larde of Fowle Shieldes.
William Eliott, of Pricking Haugh.
John Shiele, Arch. Roger, John Eliott (called blacke John), and
Roberte Eliott, of the Parke, men to Roberte Eliott, of the Red
Hugh.
Arch. Eliott, of Burnemouth, man to William Eliott, brother to
the said Roberte Eliott, of Red Hugh, with dyvers others yet
unknown, to the number of lxx. in all.
WILLIAM FENWICKE.
It has been before stated that the Robsons were at feud with the
Elliotts and Armstrongs, perhaps it was revenge, taken on hereditary
grounds of complaint alone. We find no more documents regarding
this outrage, noi’ do we know that any tradition of the event has
come down to our time. In 1628, Jane Robson, wife of Matthew
Robson, of Leaplish, was indicted at the Newcastle Assizes for
the feloniously slaying of Mabell Robson, wife of George Robson, of
Leaplish, his brother-in-lawe, by sorcery or witchcraft; Jane Robson
escaped, however, with her life.
In 1618, the following list of noted thieves infesting South Tyne
and the borders was forwarded to the Government:—
Certeyne persons inhabiting and resorting uppon and to the water
of Tine, in Tindall, bordering and adjoyning uppon Cumberland, most
of them reputed great theeves, Owtputters, or Receitors, being very
infestious to their Neighbours, whereof the Comissioners in North
umberland cannot take so perfect notice as they that dailie taste and
feele the smart of their badd demeanor.
Richard Musgrave, of Barrowe.
John Musgrave, his brother.
Knowne theeves.
Robert Musgrave, of the Holehouse.
WilEam Musgrave, his brother.
�77
Raph Smith, a vagrant person, and lyveth by filching and picking,
under pretext of fouling with a setting dogg.
Thomas Parker was banished into Ireland, and is retorned, wee
knowe not by what warrant.
Launcellott Parker, his brother, much suspected emong his
Neighbours.
Christopher Bell, of the Peth, a comon horse coper, and thought to
be a great Conveyor of stolen horses.
Nicoll Havelock, in the parish of Hawtwisell, a day lie Receitor of
Theeves and stolen horses.
Hugh Nixon, of the Howsteedes, nere the wall, reputed generally to
be a theefe, and a Comon Receitor of theeves and stolen goodes.
James Foster, of the Wall, who, for his infinite nomber of Fellonies,
could not have escaped the hand of Justice so often as he hath
done, if hee had not found extraordinary favor of some in good
reputacon in the Country.
William Walleis, late of Bellister, sence of Crackenthorp, in West
moreland, being accused of stealing of Cattell, in August last,
fledd for the same, and being sence apprehended and comitted to
Kendall Gaole, in Westmoreland, by Sir John Dalston, was,
without his consent, presently bailed by Mr. Richard Rigg,
another Justice in that Countrie, sence the Proclamacon divulged
to the contrary. And if this first offence of contempt in this
nature escape unpunished, it wilbe a precedent to others
to adventure the like, wherby his Majeste’s Commanndementes
wilbe undutifullv contemned, and this poore Countrey much
prejudiced.
N.B.—The document from which the above is an Extract (as
desired in your letter), is headed, “ A Breife Survay and Certificate
of disordered persons in the Countie aforesaid,” <fcc. (Cumbria), tabu
lated thus :—
The dwelling place.
| The Offese ™»e and hi. | The proof of the Offence.
In 1619, Lord Walden writes, that he cannot persuade honest
people to live in Tynedale, for that the people there already dwelling
�are lawless, and hold their land independent of all treason and felony.
The Border habits of misrule could not be changed in a year or two.
(Vide “Archeologia JEliana,” p. 158, vol. I.)
In 1626, the two sons of Ellen Charleton, of the Bower, in
Chirdon Burn, were arraigned at the Newcastle Assizes for horse
stealing. They seem, from the mother’s petition, to have been tried
separately on some charges, and together upon another. The New
castle Calendar, of that year, has been fortunately preserved and
printed in the “ Archeologia ^Eliana,” vol. I., p. 158, Ito. series.
“No. 15.—John Charleton, of the Bower, for suspecion of the
felonious stealing of three kine, the goodes of Thomas Fenwick, of
Lesbury. And for suspecion of divers other felonyes, and being
offered to be apprehended for the sayd felonyes fledd. And also for
suspecion of the stealeing of one graye gelding, upon which he rode
at his apprehension.
Committed by Sir Francis Brandling, and Cuthberte Hearone
and Ralph Carnaby, Esqs., 14th March, 1628.
“The said John, a fugitive and notorious theife, for the felonious
stealeing of one black mare and thirtene shepe, forth of the growndes
of Little Swinburne, the goodes of Thomas Midleton, of Belsoe, Esqr.
“ The said John, for suspecion of divers felonyes, and charged with
the felonious stealeing of two oxen, the goodes of Nicholas Errington,
of Keepwick, and three young beastes, the goodes of Richard Wilson,
of Houghton, and also the felonious stealeing of one horse, the goodes
of Gawen Bell, of Errington.”
No. 30.—“Ellen Charleton, of the Bower, charged with the
felonious stealeinge of a black mare and twenty-three (?) sheepe, the
goodes of Thomas Midleton, Esqr.”
Committed by Thomas Midleton, 13 July, 1629.
In 1629, the two sons of Ellen Charlton, of the Bower (she was
probably a widow), were in trouble, for the theft of two mares and
three cows, and were condemned to die. The poor mother prays
earnestly for their pardon, and, soon after, we find from another
paper in the Record Office, that they were reprieved and pardoned.
But the pardon, though made out, was not forwarded, and the anxious
mother petitions again, and begs it may be speedily sent, for that her
sons’ lives are in great danger, since the pardon had not arrived.
�79
though it had been announced to her. Alas ! her fears proved too
true ; her sons were executed, and, a year afterwards, the widow again
petitions for pardon for herself (we suppose as particeps criminis) and
for restitution of her goods.—It is a sad story. There was evidently
a “ circumlocution office” then, as now, in London,
*
Petition of EUen Charlton to the King, ‘¿Ath Sept., 1630.
To the King’s most excellent MatieThe humble peticon of Ellen
Charlton, of Bower, in the County of Northumberland, widdowe.
Humbly sheweth, That, by the violence of heavy prosecutors, your
peticoner hath two sonnes (viz.), John Charleton and Thomas Charle.
ton, whoe att severall assizes, holden att Newcastle, the one aboute
4 yeares since, another three yeares sithence, and the last above a
yeare since, are cast for pretended theft of two Mares and three
Cowes, and your peticioner though absent, not yet tryed, is in the
dainger of question for an accessary.
The premisses considered, and for that the Judges of that Circuict
did soe pitty the cause as they tooke your Suppliante’s Sonnes into
reprive, Your Petr now humbly beseecheth Yor Majesty, that since
the question of the factes was within the compasse of Your Majeste’s
gratious Perdon for the birth of the blessed Prince, your Petr and her
said Sonnes humbly intreate Your Majesty to be soe gratiously
pleased to give order they may be soe happy as to enjoy that your
gratious Pardon.
And as in duty bound they will ever pray for Your
Majeste’s long and prosperous Raigne.
At the Court att Hampton Court, 24 September, 1630.
It is his Majeste’s pleasure to be certified by the Judges of Assize,
before whom the parties were tryed, how the case standeth with the
peticoner and her sonnes, and whether or not they conceave them
capable of the grace and favour desired. And then his Majestie will
further shew his Royall pleasure.
THO : AYLESBURY.
* We give here the whole documents at length, as they have never before
been printed.
�80
At Hampton Courte, 28° Octobris, 1630.
Your Majesty having seene the Certificatt of Mr. Justice Davenporte, hereunto annexed, whereby it appeareth that the offences
committed by the peticoner and her two sonnes, John Charleton and
Thomas Charleton, were done before the birthe of the Prince his
highness, and not expressly excepted out of his Maj estye’s intended
pardonne, is nowe graciously pleased to pardon the said Ellon
Charleton, and her said two sonnes, the offences menconed in t.his
Peticon and Certificatt. The peticoner and her two sonnes putting
in sufficiente security for their good behaviours hereafter. And his
Maj estye’s Attorney Generali is to prepaire a pardon accordingly
readdy for his Maj estye’s Royall Signature.
SYDNEY MOUNTAGU.
[Indorsed.]
Ellen Charlton—a pardon,
for stealing a Mare.
According to the significacon of his Majestie’s gracious pleasure,
under the peticon of Ellen Charleton, widdowe, hereunto annexed, I
doe hereby, in all humblenes, certifie unto His Highnes, That att the
last Assizes, holden att Newcastle, for the Countie of Northumber
land, the eight and twentieth daie of July now last past, John
Charleton and Thomas Charleton, in the peticon menconed, had their
tryalls before me (then sitting there upon the Gaole), for the severall
felonyes following, viz‘ : John Charleton and Thomas Charleton, upon
one Indictment of them both for the stealing of a Mare, on the eight
and twentieth daie of March, in the third yeare of his Majestie’s
Raigne. And John Charleton was soly tryed upon two other
Indictments for the stealing of certaine kine (being, to my remem
brance three in the whole), on the fourth daie of November, in the
fourth yeare of his Highnes Raigne. And Thomas Charleton was
alsoe tryed alone upon one other Indictment, for the stealing of one
other Mare, upon the foure and twentieth daie of December, in the
third yeare of his Highnes Raigne. And, thereto, the same John
Charleton and Thomas Charleton, upon full evidence, in my opinion,
were justly and duly, upon those tryalls, found guiltie according to
�81
the same Indictmentes. Nor did I perceive any violent or undue
prosecucon against them or either of them in any wise, for which
causes, and for that in respect of those convictions for the stealing of
the Mares, which offences for stealing of horses or mares are too
usuall in those partes, and very much there compleyned of. They, the
said John Charleton and Thomas Charleton, were utterly excluded by
lawe from any benefitt of clergy. I proceeded to sentence of Death
against them, according to the lawe. And, nevertheles, in respect
the same offences, for which they were soe convicted and attainted,
were done before the happie birth daie of the Prince (whom Almightie
God ever blesse), and were not in there severall qualities expresly
excepted out of such his Majestie’s gratious pardon, as was granted
att or upon his Highnes coronacon. Therefore, in all due obedience
to his Highnes good pleasure, in such behalfe signified to be observed
in and through the whole Circuit, and for noe other cause or respect,
I stayed there present execucon, and have left them as persons
attainted in safe custodie in the Gaole there, to be disposed of, as it
shall seem good in his Majestie’s Royall wisedome. Nor doe I know
or was privy of any other conviction of them, or either of them, in
the peticon menconed. And, as concerning the peticoner Ellen
Charlton, the state of her case is unknowne to mee, for that, in respect
of her not appearance att the last Assizes, there was then noe
publique evidence given before mee against her. All which is in all
humblenes, hereby certified to his sacred Majestie.
By me, his Majestie’s most humble subject and servante.
HUMFRAY DAVENPORT.
Serj eantes Inn, Fleet Street,
9th of October, 1630.
Petition of Ellen Cha/rleton to the King, 15 November, 1630.
To the Hinge’s most Excellent Majestie.
The humble peticon of Ellen Charleton, widowe,
Humbly sheweth,
That the peticoner having two sonnes, both of them Indicted, con
victed, and cast att severall Assises, holden att Newcastle, for
F
�82
pretended theft of two mares and three cowes, and your peticoner,
though absent, not tryed, in danger to bee questioned for an accessary,
in September last, peticôned your royall (sic), that since the same
factes were within the Compassé of your Majestie’s gratious pardon, for
the birth of your royall sonne, Prince Charles, the joye and hope of
theis Kingdomes (whom God longe preserve), the peticoner and her
sonnes might enjoy the benefitt thereof. Whereupon your Majestie
the order to bee Certified, by the Judges of Assise, before whom
gave parties were tryed, howe the case stood with the peticoner and
her said sonnes, and whither or not they conceaved them capeable of
the grace and favor desired. Accordingly, Certificate was made, and
Your Majestie having seene the Certificate of Mr. Justice Davenport,
whereby it appeared that the offences committed by the peticoner and
her sonnes were done before the Birth of the Prince his Highnes, and
not expressly excepted out of your Majestie’s intended Pardon, was
gratiouslv pleased to pardon the peticoner and her two sonnes their
said offences, The peticoner and her sonnes putting in sufficient
securitie for their good behaviour thereafter, And your Attorney
Generali was to prepare a pardon accordingly, ready for Your
Majestie’s royall Signature, as by the peticon, Certificate and severall
references maie appeare. For effecting whereof your Majestie’s said
Attorney Generali directed his Warrant to the Clerkes of Assise for
the Indictmentes of your peticoner and her said sonnes, but albeit
Your Majeste’s gratious intencon and royall pleasure signified, yet
the said Clerkes not onely refuse to deliver the said Indictmentes,
but alsoe they and others seeke, as farr as in them lyes, to procure
warrant (contradictory to Your Majeste’s royall pleasure, so signified
for the execucôn of her sonnes) and intend to prosecute the peticoner
to the outlawry thereby, to gett to themselves that little shee hath, to
her utter undoeing for ever, notwithstanding your royall grace and
favor extended, unies Your Majestie be further gratiously pleased to
give speciall command and direction therein.
In tender comiseracôn whereof, Shee most humbly beseecheth
Your Majestie (for confirmacon of your former royall Grace and
favour extended upon the Birth of Your Majestie s said Royall
Sonne, Prince Charles) to bee gratiously pleased to graunt your royall
warrant, directed to the said Mr. Justice Davenport, thereby requiring
�83
him that hee graunt no order or direction for the execution of her
said sonnes, but that hee give command that the Indictmentes against
the peticoner and her said sonnes maye be delivered forth with, to the
intent Mr. Attorney Generali maye prepare a Pardon for them readye
for Your royall signature, and soe they enjoy the benefitt thereof,
according to Your Majestie’s gratious intencon.
And (as in dutie bound) the peticoner shall daily praie for Your
Majestie.
At the Court at Whitehall, 15° Novembris, 1630.
His Majestie’s pleasure is that the right HonbIe the Lord Keeper
doe informe himselfe whether these Delinquents be the same against
whom the countrey have made particular complainte as notorious
offendors, And if his Lordshippe shall finde them not to be such, then
his Majestie is graciously pleased to pardon them. And his Lord
shippe is to give order to the Judges that execution be staied, and
that a pardon be drawen uppe for them for his Majestie’s royall
signature.
RA : FREMAN.
May it please your Lordshipp.
According to his Majeste’s pleasure, signifyed by your Lordshipp’s
letter, dated this presente day, wee humbly certify your Lordshipp
that John Charleton, alias Barr, and Thomas Charleton, of the County
of Northumberland, menconed in the inclosed peticon, are notorious
offendors, amongest others whome the Justices of Peace and Inhabitantes of that country peticoned against, foi' which two offendors
amongest others) wee have received his Majeste’s direction, under his
signature, for execution to be donne upon them. In obedience of
which his Majeste’s comannd, wee have accordingly, by our lettres,
gyven direction to the Sheriffe of the County of Northumberland for
the due performance thereof. And so presenting our service, wee
humbly take our leave, and rest,
At Your Lordshipp’s command,
THO : TREVOR.
xviij. Novembr : 1630.
HUMFRAY DAVENPORT.
[addressed.]
To the right hoble or singuler good Lord Thomas Lord Coventry, Lord
Keeper of the Great Seale.
�■According to his Majestie’s commandment, I have informed myself
from the Judges of the last Northerne Circuit, concerning the pgtrs
two Sonnes, the Delinquents mencond in her peticon, and his Maj.
reference, and have receaved Certificat therein from the said Judges,
as by their lettres hereunto annexed appeereth. Humbly leaving the
same to His Majeste’s good pleasure.
THO: COVENTRYE, C.
Petition of Ellen Charlton to the King, 7 th January, 1630-1.
To the Hinge’s most Excellent Majestie,
The humble petición of Ellin Charlton, a poore distressed widdowe.
Humblie sheweth unto your Majestie,
That, whereas your poore peticoner hath formerlye petitioned to
yonr Majestie for a pardon for her two sonns, who, uppon wrongfull
accusacion, were condemned and lost theire lives. A_nd, whereas your
poore peticoner (Mother to 6 poor fatherles children at hoame) for
enterteyninge her said two sonns (shee knoweing noe misbehaviour or
misdemeanor by them) is in daunger of her life.
And she beinge nowe in a most woefull and lamentable estate, «
even readie to lanquishe thorowe greafe and discontent, havinge
laboured theise 20 weekes for her said childrens’ lives and not pre
valed. But thorowe long suite hath both spent all her means, and,
without a quick dispatch, and your Majeste’s gracious assistance and
helpe therein, shee is in daunger of starvinge, and her six poore
fatherles children at hoame ready to perrishe thorowe want of main
tenance and releafe.
In tender commisseracon and pittie of your woefull peticoner’s
estate, may it please Your Majestie, even for Christe’s sake, to grant
her Your Highnes gratious pardon for her owne life for all thinges
whatsoever by past. That your peticoner may pass quietlie to
succoure and releave her poore fatherles children, and (as in dutie
bound) shee shall dalie pray for your Highnes.
May it please your good Lordship
*
I have, accordinge to Your Lordshipp’s commaundement, perused
the petition of Ellin Charleton, widdowe, and if the suggestions therof
�85
be true, that she is only in daunger for receaving her children, not
knowing ther offences, she is very capable of his Majestye’s gratious
pardon; and if her offence extended further, that she did receave and
interteyn her owne sonns, knowing ther offences, soe as she did not
receave what they had stollen, nor incourage them to steale, I incline
farr to favor a Mother in such a case.
But I humbly submitt it to Your Lordship’s great wisedome, and
his Majestye’s gratious pleasure, when he shall be moved therein.
Your lordship’s most humble servant,
7 January, 1630.
RO : HEATH.
Tn the great civil war, the Tynedale men took the part of the
Royalists. Sir Edward Charlton, of Hesleyside, was created a
baronet in 1645, on having raised a troop of horse for King
Charles I. The patent of creation is still at Hesleyside. When
the Roundheads triumphed, the Cavaliers’ estates were confiscated,
and Sir Edward lost his lands among the rest. Besides the property
still retained by the family, he held many farms in Warksburn, which
were gradually alienated during the last century. In 1666, after the
Restoration, Sir Edward Charlton was in high favour. It was proposed
at appoint him Governor of Hartlepool; but, by a letter yet
unpublished, in the Record Office, we learn that objections were
raised to this appointment, “ lest it might bring in Popery,” as Sir
Edward’s family had never changed their religious belief.
On the 24th of July, 1666, Sir Edward Charlton rode into Newcastle,
with one hundred stout young men, of Tynedale, all armed
and well appointed, and intended to serve under the Duke of York
in his foot regiment. As the mustermaster did not appear in time,
Sir Edward gave them all money to procure quarters and provisions.
In 1667, we learn, from the depositions in York Castle, published by
the Surtees Society, a curious history of robberies committed in
Tynedale, by horse and cattle thieves from Cumberland. In all their
evil doings they seem to have been aided and abetted by one William
Oglethorpe, of Cumberland, a gentleman of property, but a companion
of thieves, who evidently felt themselves honoured by his company.
These Cumberland robbers broke into the house of Christopher
Wannope, in that county, and Oglethorpe was to have been of the
�86
party, but did not come. He had, however, assisted at several bur
glaries before, “ for that a house was broken about Kirk Oswald, and
in making their attempt, one of the company had a stone thrown at
him by one of the house, as he was goeing upp the ladder, which-feld
him to the ground. Upon which they left the house, and tooke the
corps, and carried him to Bewcastle, and there buried him. And
soe the said partyes smothered it unto the dead man’s friends, and
said he had been sicke a weeke before.”
From the deposition of Anne Armestrang, a companion of these
Cumberland thieves, we learn that Archie Litle stole a blunt-taled
nagg, out of Cumberland, which he carried to George Moore, of Long
Witton, in Northumberland. “ That tyme Moore helped Litle to a
booty to carry back. They first attempted to steale a white maire
with a foie, about Wooler, but were chased from her. The next night
they stole five great beastes from Long Witton, and hurried with them
towards Bewcastle. They drove the beastes by Wascow Shield, to
the house of Thomas Scott, of the Doddbogg (in North Tyne), where
Scott would not let them come unto the house, because there was a
fox thatcher there, but carried them to a sheyld harde bye his house,
*
where he made them a fire, and got them meate. After two hours,
they went out a mile further, to John Rackas Shield, where they
part two beasts among Mr. Charleton’s, of the bower, and stayed
there all day. The next night being Sunday, they drive their beastes
to Mongo Noble’s save two that tyred, and were left at Doddbogg.”
The informant then went to John Martin’s, of the Riding, and stole
some clothes, which she left at Edward Charlton’s, of the Newton,
near Bellingham, for the said Charlton advised her to put on man’s
clothes, which she did, and left her woman’s clothes at the Newton,
and with them two old pieces of gold, three gold rings, a silver bodkin,
and a green petticoat with silver lace—all of which she had stolen from
Barwith house. And when on her return, she demanded these things
from Charlton, of the Newton, he would give her none, but threatened
to deliver them to a justice of the peace, if she demanded them.”
The “profession” of cattle stealing seems to have existed in North
* Probably a misspelling for foxcatcher, retained by the farmers for the sake of
preserving their lambs.
�87
Tynedale till far into the last century. In 1624, Adie Usher, of Liddesdale, was tried and executed on the Borough Moor of Edinburgh, for
cattle thefts committed in North Tynedale. He had, with his son
then hardly sixteen years of age, driven sheep, cattle, and goats from
Sewingscheles, Emmetshaugh, Leaplish, and Hesleyside. William
Heron, of Chipchase, and William Charlton, of Hesleyside, were the
prosecutors. Usher’s son was pardoned on account of his youth.
Nearly a century later, in 1701, we have the confession of David
Weir, in Edinburgh, revealing the extistence of an organized gang of
horse stealers on both sides of the Borders, Francis Moraley, of
Moralee, in Gofton Burn, seems to have been the ringleader, but the
horses stolen from Northumberland were sold at Edinburgh, and
further north, while the Scottish horses found an easy maket in
Northumberland. Closely connected with these horse thieves was
Charlton, of Lee Hall in North Tyne. Charlton, and Hall, of
Monk ridge, seem to have been both county keepers, or heads of the
police in their own district. Hall had prosecuted some of the horse
thieves in his immediate neighbourhood, and hence there seems to
have been a general combination of the freebooters to ruin him by
making Reedsdale the scene of their depredation. To this they were
evidently prompted by Charlton, of Lee Hall. The whole confession
of David Weir may be seen in the appendix to Sir Walter Scott’s
Border Antiquities.
The Armstrongs, of Grandyknowes, close to Houseteads, were a
most notorious race. Probably they were originally from the Scottish
border—
“ But their misdeids they were so great,
They banished them to the English syde.”
Nicholas Armstrong, about the year 1700, accused Wm. Lowes, of
Crow Hall/in'South Tyne, of having instigated two of Armstrong’s
brothers—William and Thomas—to cut out the tongue of William
Turner, of Cringledykes. Turner’s tongue was, however, not so
entirely destroyed but that he was able to tell, in full court, the whole
story. He said that William and Thomas Armstrong went up to
him while he was trying to catch a horse on the common, and at first
threatened to shoot him, but afterwards cut out his tongue, and with
it his right ear and part of his cheek. Lowes denied the cliaige of
�instigating the deed, and retorted that Charleton, of Lee Hall, knew
more of the affair than he chose to tell. It seems that Lowes had
underbid Charleton for the office of county keeper, in 1705 and 1706,
hence the jealousy between the two, while the Armstrong’s attacked
Turner, to revenge themselves for his giving information against them
in a horse stealing case.
Charlton, of Lee Hall, seems to have been a most turbulent
character.
His feuds with Lowes, of Willimoteswick, the
county keeper of South Tynedale, are still, remembered in Tynedale. Charlton seem to have been as bold as Lowes was timid.
They had constant encounters, but Lowes, for a long time, escaped
his rival. Once his life was saved by an old woman closing a gate
after he had passed, with Charlton in hot pursuit, and the delay enabled
him to reach his stronghold at Willemoteswick. Again they met
and fought at Bellingham, and Lowes’ horse was killed by a stab
made at his rider by Charlton, Lowes escaping by jumping on the
back of a horse standing near. A fragment of the old ballad made
on this occasion is yet preserved :—
Oh, had Lee Hall but been a man,
As he was niver nane,
He wad have stricken the rider,
And letten the horse alean.
At length Lowes was taken prisoner in a fight near Sewingshields,
and Charlton is said to have chained him to the grate of his kitchen
fire, at Lee Hall. He is said to have been rescued afterwards by
Frank Stokoe, of Chesterwood.
Then came another change of scene. The cavaliers who had
triumphed in the Restoration, fell into disfavour at the Revolution of
1688, at least, all those who adhered to the fortunes of the Stuarts.
The Catholic cavaliers, about all, became liable to constant suspicion
and with a good reason too, for there were constant plots to restore the
fallen dynasty. In 1687, there were seven Catholic gentlemen of
Northumberland on the commission of the peace, and among them
was Edward Charlton, of Hesleyside. He was, probably, put off the
commission of the peace on the accession of William III. j and in
1689, as we find frojp the depositions in York Castle, he was suspected
for treason, in consequence of a letter from him having been
�seized on its way to Albert Hodgson, a well-know “ Papist” and
cavalier in Newcastle. He was then accused of spreading false
intelligence regarding the landing of King James, the newly-deposed
monarch, in Scotland, but he escaped by denying all knowledge of
the dangerous letter. The epistle is delightfully phonetic in its
orthography.
“ Mr. Hodgson,—My brother Jake is not yet corned home, but this
week we expect him. As sonne as he comse I will sind mony for
the hatte. As for news we heare that six thusand of K. J. forsis
sartainly landed at Kintir, in the Hylands. They prist all bots and
vissils (boats and vessels) in K. J. name to goe back to Ireland for
more forsis, and they are gon, and the rist following fast. Allso there
master who sartanly lands in Skotland. Fortty thusand Frinch
landed in Ireland.” The letter concludes with a commission to Mr.
Hodgson, who, probably, was a general merchant in Newcastle.
“ Pray sind me too botells of your vere hist Rinnis, and two botells
of whit wine, the bist you have. The clarred (claret) was so bad as
we weare forst to sind for better, but I emadgen you had noo better.”
The old squire of Hesleyside drank Rhenish and claret in those days,
for the poisoned wines of Spain had not then been forced upon the
English palate.
In the same year, a fearful murder seems to have been committed
on Gunnerton Fell. The murdered man was discovered by one
of the Shaftoes of Gunnerton. He deposes that “ on the 10th
of May, 1689, goeing out into Gunnerton Moore, a gunning,
very early yesterday morning, upon the breake of day, at a place
called Stone Gapps, in Gunnerton Moores, he sees two gray
maires, both sadled and bridled, and the one of their bridles tyed to
the other’s stirrup-iron. And seeing none neare the said maires, he
brought them to the common pinfold of Gunnerton, and putt them
therein. After which, he called his brother, William Shaftoe, and
told him they would goe and see if they could see the owners of the
said maires. And riding on the said moore to a place called Whitley
Knoake, being further on the moore, and higher than ordinary, they
hollowed there to know if any would answer them. And going
northward on the said hill, they heard the voice of a man crying out,
‘ Helpe, for Christ Jesus’ sake,’ and wished hee had but a man to
�90
speake to him before he dyed. Whereupon this informant and his
brother goes northward to a burne side, and he spoke over the burne,
and asked him what the matter was, and what he wanted, who
replyed hee wanted nothing but a man to speake with him before he
dyed, for he was a dyeing man. And this informer, asking how or
by whome, he said there was a rogue had shott and murdered him.
This informant asked him if he knew him that did soe, and he said,
Yes, he knew him well enough. And askin him what they called
him, hee answered, ‘ Roger.’ This informer asked him if he knew
his surname; he said noe, but one Mr. Errington, of the Linnells,
knew him well enough, hee being once the said Mr. Errington’s servant.
And this informant and his brother rode through the burne
and went to the place where he was lying waltering in his owne
blood. This informant asked if the rogue had gott any money from
him, and he said he had got two guinnies, one silver watch, one
crowne piece of silver, three or four shillings, his crivitt (cravat) and
sleeves. This informant asking him if he had not a hatt, he said,
Noe ; but hee had a velvett capp, which the rogue had gone with.
This informant asked him if he had noe spurrs, and he said, ‘ 0 deare,
and is hee gone with my spurrs to !’; and, findeing a piece of a
pistoll stocke, hee saide, ‘ Oh dear ! he had two pistolls.’ And this
informant, searching among the hather, found the stocke and locke of
another pistoll, and asked him how the rogue came by the pistolles,
who replyed, Mr. Errington lent him them before they came away.
And askeing him how hee came to be soe farr out of the way, hee
said they were goeing to the Highlands, to see the rogue’s mother.
And the maires were both his owne, and he lent the rogue one to ride
on, and now hee’s gone with them bothe. The rogue pretended him
self to be sleepy and weary, and had a desire they should light and
rest themselves a litle; and when they came and lay downe, the de
ceased lying on his belly, with his head upon his arme, never feareing
anything, the said Roger shott in att his back, between his shoulders.
And, after he had shott him, he fell upon him, beating and cutting of
his head in several places with the pistolls. And he prayed him, for
Christ’s sake, nott to beat or cutt his head with the pistolls, and he
would quitt him all that he bad in the world freely, but the rogue
said he would not; of which shott and wounds the said deceased dyed.”
�We learn no more of this sad murder, except that the murdered
man was a gentleman of Yorkshire, of the name of Braidclyffe, of
Farrburne. It is possible that he may have been travelling on some
Jacobite errand; for the Erringtons, of the Linnells, were disaffected
to the then government. It is curious to note, that Mr. Shaftoe, the
informant, went out a gunning on the moors of Gunnerton, early on
a May morning. It was the practice, even to the end of the last
century, to shoot the old moorcocks in the pairing season, when they
are much more easy of approach. In Norway, and in Germany, the
practice prevails to the present day.
With the death of Anne, and the accession of the House of Hano
ver, the hopes of the Jacobites revived. The “ Wee German lairdie ”
was most unpopular in England j nor did he ever become reconciled
to our English fashions. The North Tyne gentry were almost to a
man, Jacobites j and the influence of the Earl of Derwentwater, who
owned the manor of Hareshaw, no doubt drew many to the standard
raised by that unfortunate nobleman. Of the North Tynedale men,
one of the leaders was Captain Hunter, of the Highfield, a man of
no good character, and a noted horse thief. But another well
known character at that time, in Tynedale, now appears on the
scene viz., William Charlton, of the Bower and Reedsmouth,
generally spoken of by the soubriquet of “Bowrie.” This was
not the first time that Bowrie had been in trouble with the
Government.
On the 21st of February, 1709, he quarrelled with Henry
Widdrington of Buteland (?) about a horse as there was a horse
,
*
* In these times the penal statute, by which no papist was allowed to possess a
horse of the value of more than five pounds, was strictly enforced. In 1745, Sir
William Middleton, of Belsay, seized the horses at Hesleyside ; and in the Leadbitter family there is a tradition of the devices resorted to to preserve a valuable
horse belonging to the then owner of Warden. The horse was first hid in the
wood that borders Homer’s lane, but having been heard to neigh when a picket of
soldiers was riding by, it was thought dangerous to leave him there. He was
accordingly brought back to Warden, and was lifted by cords up into the loft
above the cart-horse stable, and there a chamber was built round him of trusses of
hay and straw. His neighing here would, of course, attract no attention, unless
the soldiers were actually in the stable. A few days after, while the house at
Warden was closely watched by bailiffs from Hexham, the inmates were unable to
get to the loft to give the horse water, and the poor animal consequently became
�race that day on the Doddheaps, close to Bellingham. They adjourned
to a small hollow south of the Doddheaps called Reedswood Scroggs,
and which we can remember well as having been pointed out to us
many years ago. The ash trees in that fatal hollow had not then
been cut down ; indeed, they were standing till within a few years,
and served to mark the spot. Here the combatants fought, and
Bowrie slew his opponent. He is said by one tradition to have been
taken “ red.handed,” as William Laidley (aw of Emblehope, who
witnessed^the fight, hastened to the Doddheaps, and alarmed the
people, who seized the offender.
*
We are inclined, however, to believe
extremely restless, stamping furiously on the floor of the loft. One of the
Charltons, whose descendant still lives in Hexham, resolved to rescue the animal.
While his friends led the bailiffs round to the back of the stable, to which they had
been attracted by the noise, Charlton lowered the horse down through the trap
door, and jumping on his back, urged him at full speed across the haugh to the
Tyne. It was a heavy flood, with much floating ice, but he dashed bravely in, and
had nearly reached the opposite bank when the bailiffs became aware of his flight,
but none dared to follow him ; and he never drew bridle till he reached the friendly
shelter of Nafferton, which was at that time occupied by the Leadbitters.
* The information of William Laidley, or Laidlaw, of Emblehope, regarding
this case, is still preserved among the Allgood papers. It is dated February 28th,
1709.
“ The said informant, upon his oath, saith, that on Tuesday, the 21st day of
February, he was travelling upon the highway leading from Bellingham to
Reedswood, together with one James Laidley, brother to the informant, and, in a
wood sailed Reedswood Scroggs, near the highway, he hard a noise at a small
distance from the highway, but did not know the meaning of it, but proceeding a
little further, he saw a man running from a place where some men’s cloathes were
lying in said wood, towards Reedswood, and he perceived that he had either a hat
and a periwigg, or a periwig only, in his hand ; and so came to a place where a man
was lying, and took him in his armes, though the informant did not see the man who
was lying on the ground, till the other man lifted him up, and asked him where he
was hurt. But the man who was lying on the ground did return no answer ;
whereupon the other man returned to the place whence he brought the hatt and
periwigg, and brought from thence a coat, and asked him if he would have on his
coat, but again there was no answer. Then did the other man call to the
informant to come near, and, coming near, he saw that the man lying on the ground
was Mr. Henry Widdrington, but he did not know the other ; but he had blood
upon his face, and he saw him take up a long sword, which was lying near the said
Henry Witherington, and put it into his scabbard, and gird it about him. And
he then desired the informant to send his brother to the Doddheaps to tell the
people, who were at a horse-race there, and to lift up Henry Witherington,
and put on his coat. But this informant, looking at Mr. Witherington, said
that he was dead, whereupon the said man ran to his horse, which was tyed to
�93
that Bowrie escaped on horseback, and that same night reached the
residence of Nicholas Leadbitter, of Warden and Wharmley. He
was concealed in the house at Wharmley, and walked the floor all
the night in his heavy boots, to the surprise, and no doubt somewhat
to the annoyance, of his host and his family. He subsequently
obtained the pardon of Queen Anne, under the great seal, for this
chance medley. Widdrington’s body was buried before Charlton’s
pew door in Bellingham Church, under the inscription, now hidden
by pew-work
“ The Burial Place of Henry Widrington of Butland,
Gentleman, who was killed by Mr. William Charlton of Reedsmouth,
February 23rd [21st 1], in the Year of our Lord, 1711.” (1709 or
17101] It is said that on this account Bowrie would never again
enter the sacred edifice It therefore seems that Bowrie was
probably a protestant, or at least had temporarily conformed, and
this is the more probable, as we find in Patten’s History of the
Rebellion that his name is not entered as a papist. On the other
hand, he is not designated a protestant, as are the other “ rebels ; ”
so we may fairly conclude that Bowrie had no religion at all. His
brother Edward is said by Patten to have recently become a papist,
having married a person of that persuasion. However, we find that
Bowrie’s lands are registered as a catholic’s under the penal statutes
in 1723. Be this as it may, Bowrie left no legitimate issue, and the
children of Edward Charleton, his younger brother, succeeded to the
estates. Edward Charleton had married the relict of Errington, of
Waiwick Grange, originally a Miss Dalton, of Thurnham, and Bowrie
is said to have been anxious that his illegitimate daughters should be
brought up under hei- care. She demurred, under the plea that they
were protestants and she catholic, but Bowrie told her to make them
what she liked. These ladies afterwards lived long in Hexham, and
are remembered by persons yet living. They continued staunch
Jacobites to the very last. On the first relaxation of the penal laws,
about 1780, King George III. was for the first time prayed for
a tree hard bye, and mounted, and called to informant to attend to the dying
man. Whereupon the said man rode away towards Reedswood, and informant
went up to the Doddheaps to inform the people, and shouted to them to come,
and they came to the place where the said Witherington was lying, and informant
saw a wound upon his left breast, and some of the company said it was done by
"VVilliam Charlton, of Reedsmouth, whom he did not know by sight.’
�teg
Baa
t
94
publicly in the catholic chapels in England. The instant his name
was mentioned, the Miss Charletons rose from their seat and moved
out of the chapel, and this they continued to do all their lives. We
know not who were the friends by whose intercession Bowrie
obtained his pardon from Queen Anne. It is probable that the
occurrence was regarded in the light of a mere brawl ; and tradition
gives us, as one of the circumstances strongly urged in his favour,
that, after Widdrington had fallen, he threw his own cloak over the
dying man before he rode away from the scene.
We next hear of Bowrie as engaged in the rising of 171
5
*,
but the
details of his exploits on that occasion have not come down to us.
He behaved, it is said, bravely at Preston, but we do not know when
he was relieved. In 1745, Bowrie was imprisoned as one suspected
of favouring the Stuarts. It is said that this was done by his own
friends to keep him out of mischief, for he must then have been well
advanced in years. Bowrie no doubt felt his imprisonment keenly,
and did his best to obtain his release. He seems to have applied to
Collingwood, of Chirton, for this purpose, and we produce that
gentleman’s autograph answer, regretting his inability to do anything
for him.
SB
i
Dear Sir —I reca the favour of yours with no small concern, and am very
sensible how uneasy your confinement must make you. I should be glad
if it were in my power to put an end to it by admitting you to bail, and
hoped the transmitting above such informations against you as had come to
my knowledge, together with your own examination, might have procured
leave to bail you ; but, instead of that, the Duke of Newcastle told us in
his answer that it was not proper to admit you to bail. I own I thought
that answer cruel, unless it were occasioned by some further charge against
you, which you must be the best judge whether probable or not. As you
stand committed by the Mayor of Newcastle, the Bench of Northumberland
cannot aid you, and as the Mayor is acquainted with the Duke of New
castle’s directions, I am apt to think he will not act contrary to them. I
will, however, communicate your letter to him, and do you all the service
I am able, but am afraid that you must apply to the Duke of Newcastle
for leave for the Mayor to bail you before that step can be taken.
This is the true state of your case, which I thought it not improper to
make you acquainted with, that you might be apprized I want power more
than inclination to relieve you ; for as I wish and hope you will prove
innocent, I hereby sympathize with you in your suffering, and am, as I
always have been—Dear Sir—your real friend and humble servt.,
Ed. Collingwood.—Chirton, June (?) 12, 1746.
From this time we do not learn much of him, save what has come
down by tradition of his rough and roystcring disposition. In 1736,
�95
James Tone, steward at Hesleyside, writing to Edward Charleton of
Heslevside, who had then, on the death of his father, succeeded to
that property, speaks thus of Bowrie. We have preserved the
remarkable orthography of the letter :—
“ Bowrry Charlton wass all wayes vearry a-Bousiffe and scornfull man
to my Master—and would a made him foudelled and sould him deare
Bargains and abused him when he had done.”
No doubt the old squire was rough and rude, and fond of his cups.
Among the articles preserved by his descendants is a Venice glass,
with a rose and oak leaf engraven on the bowl. Between these
is a single star, to which, when the King’s health was given, the
loyal Jacobite placed his lips, and drank his Majesty’s health “under
the rose.”* Another glass, of which but very few now remain, has
Prince Charles’s head and bust, with the motto, “ Audentior Ibo.”
Another huge Venice glass has on it the inscription, “ Pero, (dog)
take your advantage]' which may, however, have been only a drink ■
ing word of the old squire’s. No doubt Bowrie, after his release,
continued to cherish the memory of the Stuarts, and perhaps to plot
a little in their favour when an opportunity occurred. Nothing was
more likely than that he and his family should love to collect
memorials of the Stuarts, and there is preserved a mull, dated 1745,
with the inscription, “ 0 Charlie, ye’ve been lang a cummin 1” a pair
of the well-known Jacobite silk garters, woven probably at Lyons,
with the inscription, “ come let us with one heart agree—to pray
that god may bless p. c.and a pincushion, bearing the names of
the victims of 1746 on the Jacobite side.b We suspect these pin
cushions to have been likewise made at Lyons, or somewhere abroad.
Another relic connected with these times is a letter written
evidently by a conspirator, and couched in the most ambiguous terms.
The original is directed to Mr. William Bell, supervisor, .Hexham ;
but there can be little or no doubt but that it was intended for no
* The star is exactly under a large full-blown rose, which doubtless symbolises
the claimant of the crown himself. There are two buds, greater and lesser, on the
same branch, perhaps intended for Prince Charles, and the Cardinal of York.
+ Of white satin, with blue tassels at the corners. The inscriptions are printed
from copper-plates, and the names run in circles round a centre, in which is a
I
I'
�such servant of King George, as the individual addressed in the
letter itself is termed Dr. Cambray. This was no doubt a nom de
guerre, and we have no means of knowing who was the Pontifex
Maximus. Nor do we believe that Wylam is the real place spoken
of as the place of meeting appointed.
Dr Cambray,—I had yours, and nothing could give me greater pleasure
than to hear that our generous and worthy friend Bowrie is still able to
bend a Bicker. Long may he live to teem a Cog, and (while he disdains
the little superficial formalitys of our modern Gentry or those that would
be thought such) to receive his friends with the old undisguised and
Gentlemanlike hearty welcome.
The proposal he made concerning Carmichael is of a piece with the
general tenour of his benevolent sentiments towards the honest or indigent
part of mankind.
When he takes his flight from among your Northumbrian mountains
towards the Elysian fields, he’ll scarcely leave a fellow. Nor am I so
partial to the Calidonian hills, as to believe they ever produced a man of
more honr and honesty.
Carmichael is a good honest lad, but infected with that damned Scots
disease never to spare his [property ?], or his purse where friendship or
necessity calls. Notwithstanding, he has three callants will receive no
arguments instead of a dinner, and the good wife, a yell [?] Kid ip^'ii&F'
Killting ; so that if the affair could be carried on, I would wfflingly
contribute my mite, but I want courage to beg for a Countryman.
double rose displayed, and the inscription round it,
(Martyred for king and country, 1746.)
f
(
■
I
mart
—- : FOR : K: & cou : 1746
Inner Ring.—Earl Kilmarnock. Earl Derwentwater. Ld. Lovat. Ld.
Balmorino.
Second Ring. —T. Deacon. Syddale.
T. Chadwicke. G. Fletcher.
J. Berwick. Ja. Bradshaw. J. Dawson.
Third Ring.—P. Taylor. P. Lindsey. A. Kennedy. J. McGregor.
A. Parker. P. Keir. L. Read. The Revd. T. Coppock. T. Park.
A. Blyde.
Outer Ring.—J. McGenis. J. Thompson Murray. Mayrie. Stevenson.
McDonald. Dempsey. Connolly. Endsworth. Sparks. Horn.
D.
Morgan. Esqr. C. Gordon. McKenzie. J. McClain.
Inner Ring.—Col. Townley.
Sir. L. Wederburn.
Sir A. Primrose.
F. Buchannan, Esqr. I. Hamilton, Esqr.
Second Ring.—M. Deliard. C. Gordon. Cap. McDonald. Cap. Wood.
Cap. Leith. Cap. Hamilton. Dan. M. Daniel.
Third Ring.—I. Wallis. Henderson. I McNaughton. I. Roebothom.
H. Cameron. I. Inness. I. Harvie. D. Fraizer. B. Mayson. Donald
M’Donald.
Outer Ring.—The Revd. R. Lyon. Rol. Clavering. G. Reid. Eaton.
Heys. Brady.
Ogilvie. Roper.
Brand.
Swan.
Holt.
Hunter
Mitchel. Nicholson. Matthews. Hunt.
�If you see Bowrie, offer him my warmest good wishes, which extends to
the tenth generation after him. Accept the same for the bairns, especially
Bessy Bell, for I have had none to talk nonsense to since she left me. Tell
her Madam Badrons has a pair of bonnie bairns, and swears revenge on her
for diserting her office, as she was formerly nurse. Make my compliments
to her Ladyship with all the havings you have, and believe me to be with
paternal as well as pastoral affection, Dr Cambray, Yours while—
Pont. Max.—From the face of the Deep Waters, July 17th, 1750.
P.S. I almost dayly see men from South and North intirely strangers
to the habitation of the Young Goodman of Bellnagih ; only they tell me
his father alone knows where he is, assures them he is well, and desires
they may be content and ask no more questions. Tom, of Lubeck, is here
from Loud : and greets you kindly in the covenant ; he intends to kiss
your hands at Wylam Sunday comes a week, where I must attend the
conclave, but if he’s diverted by his friends I shall give you notice.
Mention the honest Bp. to Bowrie ; he was once his guest upon the
Bellingham tramp. [Address.]—To Mr. Wm. Bell, Supervisor, Hexham.
The character of Bowrie here given is, in all probability, a tolerably
correct one. The writer hints at his somewhat rough and unpolished
manners, but bears testimony to his good heart. The allusion to the
“ Young Goodman of Bellnagih ” is evidently meant for the Young
K^i^pBr^ice Charles, by the old Stuart soubriquet of the “ Gudeman of
■Ballengeich.” It would have been curious indeed if we could have
gyj ''7. obtained a report of what was discussed at the conclave, at Wylam,
— butno short-hand writer was present at these secret meetings to take
down the dangerous words uttered, or the treasonable toasts drank,
by the Jacobite squires of Northumberland.
Of the “grayne” of the Milburns but little has been recorded in
print, while North Tynedale has retained some interesting traditions
of this bold family. Many will still remember a fine specimen of the
North Tynedale man, Muckle Jock Milburn, of Bellingham, a man
of gigantic size and strength, and endowed with a corresponding
power of lungs. Muckle Jock held many traditions of the old border
days, which alas ! have, for the most part, died with him. He told
us that he remembered more than once clearing Bellingham fail’ with
the Tarset and Tarretburn men at his back, to the old Border cry of
Tarset and Tarret burn
Hard------- and heather bred
Yet—Yet—Yet.
He was a descendant of the Milburns, of the Combe, in Tarset. Indeed,
he claimed Barty of the Comb, the subject of the following anecdote,
as his direct ancestor. Barty was a celebrated swordsman, as well as
of prodigious strength. He appears to have lived about the end of
G
|
’Xj’
�98
the seventeenth century. Barty’s dwelling was very near to the
Scottish border, and, therefore, was sadly exposed to the inroads of
the Scottish reivers, who still retained, long after the union of
England and Scotland, the habit of making raids for cattle on the
English side.
*
Barty’s ally was a stout yeoman, called Corbit Jack,
or Hodge Corby, whose peel stood a little farther up the burn, and
is still in tolerable preservation. There is a slight attempt at a
moat around it, and on a stone in the low doorway, there are three
rude crosses incised. One morning, when Barty arose, his sheep
were all missing, they had been driven off by Scottish thieves,
during the night. He immediately summoned Corbit Jack, and ai-ming
themselves, they followed the track of the sheep over the hill, down the
Blackhopeburn, into Reedwater, and thence across the border north
of the Carter, into Scotland. Here they lost the trace altogether, and
they seem to have been unprovided with a “ sleuth hound ” to track
the thieves. Barty, however, insisted that they should not return
emptyhanded, and, after a short council, they decided that the Leatham
wethers were the best, and accordingly they drove off a goodly
selection of these, and commenced their retreat. The loss was soon
perceived by the Scottish men, who immediately despatched two of
their best swordsman to recever the booty. They overtook Barty
and Corbit Jack at Chattleliope Spout, and insisted that the wethers
should be delivered up. Barty was willing to return half the flock,
but he would not go back “ toom-handed” to the Comb. The two
Scots being picked men, would not hear of a compromise, and the
fight began directly, in the long heather above the waterfall. Barty
called out “ Let the better man turn to me !” and the Scot, after a
few passes, ran his broadsword into Barty’s thigh. He, of the Combe,
jumped round, and wrenched the sword, so that it broke, and at the
same moment he was attacked from behind by the other Scot, who
had already slain his comrade, Corbit J ack. Barty made one tremen
dous back-handed blow, caught the second Scot in the neck, and—as
he expressed it—“ garred his heid spang alang the heather like an
* Roger Robson, alias Hodge Billy, of Sundaysight, near the Combe, was
indicted at the assizes, in 1629, for stealing a dun mare belonging to Lionel
Shipley.
..
�99
inion.” His first assailant tried to make off, but was cut down ere
he had run many yards. Barty took both swords, lifted his dead
companion on his back, and, in spite of his own wound, drove the
sheep safely over the height down to the Comb, and deposited Corbit
Jack’s body at his own door.
Another of the Milburns quarrelled one day, in Bellingham, with
a Borderer, and it was, of course, decided to settle their differences
with the sword. As they stripped to their shirts, in the streets,
Milburn paused, and shouted to his wife, who was in the assembled
crowd, “ Wife, bring me out a clean sark : it sail niver be said that
the bluid of the Milburns ran down upon foul linen!”
Muckle Jock himself was no bad hand at repartee. He often
accompanied Mr. William Brandling, of Low Gosforth, on his shoot
ing excursions on Hareshaw.
On one occasion, the Rev. Ralph
Brandling, of Gosforth, was of the party, and he, unaccustomed to
Jock’s freedom of speech, roundly rebuked him with sundry most uncanonical imprecations. Jock heard all quietly, for lie cared for
curses as little as he did for blows; but, at the end, he observed,
“ Hech, man, they maun hae been unco scant o’ timmer when
they my’ed thee a pillar of the kirk !” Jock was often up at
Mounces, when the Swinburne family were staying there in the
Autumn. On one occasion, the late Sir John Swinburne entrusted to
him a packet, containing letters of great importance, to take over the
Border to Newcastleton, to the post. In those days, the post only
came up North Tyne as far as Bellingham, and that but twice a week.
Weeks passed away, and the letters did not reach their destination.
Jock was asked if he had posted them at Newcastleton. “ That did
I no,” replied the stout Borderer ; “ I just gied the packet to Archie,
wha gied it till anither man, wha said he kenned a man wad be
gannin sune to the post!”
On a very rainy day, Jock was sent with a message to Falstone,
and to keep him dry, they offered him the coachman’s heavy box coat.
Jock performed his errand, but returned dripping wet, and without
the coat. “Ijuist leavit it at the Fausestayne,” said he, “it was
better to be drooned than smoored !”
Jock was a keen sportsman, and particularly fond of greyhound
coursing. Even when past his eightieth year, he could find a sitting
�100
hare better than most men in the country. One day, when at
Reedsmouth, he exclaimed to the late G. Gibson, Esq., “ Mr. Gibson,
it’s a varrra long time sin ye gied me a hare.” 11 Oh,” said the
squire, 11 you shall have a hare, Jock, at once ; ” and turning to his
servant, Robert Riddell, he said, “ Robert, take the gun, and Jock
will soon find you a hare.” “ Hout, maister,” replied Jock, “ you
need na fash wi’ the gun, the hare’s lying i’ the dyke ; I just felled
her as I cam’ down the pastur’, but I wad na lift her till I’d gotten
your leave.”
No small indignation was felt among the peaceful borderers at the
head of the North Tyne, at the publication of Macaulay’s wonderful
picture of their rude habits. It will be recollected that he painted
the people of the Keeldar district as having been little better than
savages within the memory of man. The late Sir John Swinburne
was especially indignant. In a letter we received from him upon the
subject, written long after he had passed his ninetieth year, he said,
“I have been a landholder at the head of North Tyne for nearly
three-quarters of a century, and, in my youth, I knew many old men
who could remember the rising in 1715. After that fatal expedition,
the Tynedale men were disarmed, and the country has remained ex
ceedingly quiet to the present day. I am quite certain that Macaulay’s
sketch is wondrously overdrawn, if not absolutely false, in every
particular.” We, ourselves, took some pains, shortly after the appear
ance of Macaulay’s work, to trace this marvellous story. From
Macaulay, we traced it back to the late Sir David Smyth, and to the
former Duke of Northumberland, Hugh Percy, who died in 1847.
By that nobleman it was communicated to Sir Walter Scott. What
chance had any story in such hands? It seems to have originated
from a short note in the first Duke of Northumberland’s manuscript x
journal of his first visit to Keeldar, to the effect that the shepherds
there were exceedingly shy, and laid down on the heather to watch
his performances with the gun. He adds, that they seem wild,
marvellously shy and uncultivated.
Perhaps the poor fellows
remembered the demeanour of the proud Duke of Somerset, when he
ruled in that district. Sir David Smyth’s notes on Keeldar improved
the story a little ; he added a few lines about the wild dances of the
men and women, and upon this Scott built his story, to which
�101
Macaulay put the finishing touches. The Duke’s note book never
mentions the dances or the song, the chorus of which was “ Orsina,
orsina, orsina!” What language was it that they spoke ? All the
depositions taken a century before are in good plain English, with
a dash of the Scottish tongue.
North Tynedale, and Reedsdale, are now what they have been for
the last hundred and fifty years—quiet pastoral vales, peopled by an
intelligent, handsome, and strongly-built race, as free from crime and
vice as any part of the British dominions
The Swinburnes and the
Charltons hold the lands they held in the thirteenth century ; the
Robsons are rife about Falstone; the Dodds are yet numerous on the
Border, and the Milburns are by no means extinct. May it be long
ere these goodly names cease to be found in the district.
THE END.
�NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE :
PRINTED BY J. 31. CARR, STEAM PRINTING WORKS, LOW I RIAR STREET.
���
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Memorials of North Tyndale and its four surnames
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Collation: 101 p. ; 24 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Charlton, Edward
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
J.M. Carr, printers
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5573
Subject
The topic of the resource
Northumberland
Local history
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Memorials of North Tyndale and its four surnames), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Names
Northumberland
Personal
Tynedale
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a51fee5993cbf98eb9f3ffcb6767eb8c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VKKpJuDckA3FgWwNgOz2VrMebuYRexN-9tWDsC5W2UjVu5D69YOlGjASttWtI8%7EWHqL6laACEM8e-3L6pOT3F-MCo87ybxJV9P6EKUANP9H8ZujxU0QX8b6ir%7Eqz4LjaV8jINLmB4FvKfzdKsgThJ8g7k0ESFZhmx%7EKVROF1KjLp-3AF9lenxSM-2Ed2A1kMUpEj2hOZAenfJO3Fn5wG-ZTELAq79eod6RIAAd-2Iq9jHJKUitVn7%7EJnhbRfxwJrfvfpPaexgOLihuomKox0nZn-Xx-svcgY9uGSL62Jw-aK4X1pWBiafqz9ZxYYWX%7E8Qt0leRBMac33GtMgWtuAOw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4f211014c435711e2dc9773585507aeb
PDF Text
Text
THE TENDENCIES
OF
MODERN RELIGIOUS THOUGHT.
BY THE LATE
EEV. JAMES CRANBROOK,
EDINBURGH.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Threepence.
�■j
I
�THE
TENDENCIES
OF
MODERN RELIGIOUS THOUGHT.*
------- +-------
HERE can be no question, I suppose, that there is
a much
spread
Tearnestnessmore demonstrative and widely was some
in matters of religion than there
thirty years ago. In the more early part of the
century, the great wave of religious excitement which
had thrown up on its surface the Methodists, had
begun to retire, and the usual apathy and indifference
had succeeded amongst the masses, whilst routine and
formalism had taken possession of the sects it had
called forth. Here and there spasmodic efforts were
made to get up revivals; but they all failed, and what
the evangelicals called the Laodicean state seemed
all but universal. I say seemed, because I by no
means suppose that the want of a demonstration
which attracts attention and makes a great deal of
fussy noise is a real indication of a want of earnest
ness ; and, as a matter of fact, we know that whilst
this outward coldness prevailed there was a number
of thoughtful minds pursuing their course very
* This discourse was delivered by the late Mr. Cranbrook,
in the Hopetoun Rooms, Edinburgh, on the evening of Sunday,
February 24, 1S68.—one year after he had resigned connection
with the Independent Church. This explains the references
in the concluding paragraphs, which were specially addressed
to those of his audience who had left the church along
with him.
�2
The Tendencies of
earnestly, and to whose quiet, unostentatious labours
we owe very much of the greater zeal which charac
terises the present day. It was about the year 1830
that the first signs of a revived earnestness began to
•manifest themselves. A number of scholars connected
with the University of Oxford became alarmed at the
wide-spread influence of Dissent, and the prevalence
of Latitudinarian views within the Church of England.
They united together to stem and stop the adverse
current. They began to preach Christ, and in every
way within their power to propagate high-church
doctrines. Their teaching awakened antagonism in
the evangelical party within their church. It aroused
the opposition and indignation of the Dissenters, who
resented the denial that was given to the efficacy of
their sacraments, the ministerial character of their
pastors, and their right to be regarded as a part of
the Christian Church. The controversy called forth
the attention of the outer world. Statesmen, mer
chants, tradesmen paused in the middle of their secular
affairs to listen to the ecclesiastical din. The working
classes looked on sometimes with a sullen indifference
and sometimes with an intelligent contempt. The
questions debated became more' and more vital.
Philosophers and men of science began to mingle in
.the fray. The controversy passed from the learned
halls of Oxford, and the pulpits of Evangelical clergy
men and Dissenting ministers, from religious news
papers, magazines, and tracts, to the sphere of general
society and the. current literature of the day. We
are now living in the midst of it, but, I expect, shall
scarcely live long enough to see its close.
I have spoken of these manifestations of earnest
religious life as a controversy: They are so, inasmuch
as they assume the form of discussion, proof and
counter-proof, antagonism of thought and feeling,
divines railing against their brother divines, and
churches pitted against each other and divided in their
own midst. Yet the word controversy is insufficient,
�Modern Religious Thought.
3
defective, and unable to express the true character
of this great religious activity. For it affects the
whole life of men; brings out their deepest, inmost
thoughts and feelings—nay, is the coming out of their
inmost thoughts and feelings ; is the striving of man
in this our day to adjust his life, himself, to the great
facts of the universe revealed to him. It was not the
desire of Drs. Pusey, Newman, and the other Oxford
men to save their church which truly gave rise to it.
That was only an accidental, though most marked
expression of it under a form determined by special
circumstances. The real causes lay much deepei’ and
were more general. Nor is it the mere rivalries of
sects and parties which keep it alive. Its abiding
cause must be sought in the midst of the great changes
which the last few centuries have been producing in
society itself.
And I have no hesitation in saying that cause
consists almost entirely in the most wonderful progress
which has been made in physical science. Through
all the history of thought you will find that physical
science in past times exerted scarcely any influence
in determining any of the great questions of life.
Philosophy, comprehending within itself theology,
was the sole mistress of the human mind. And the
philosophy I mean was metaphysical, at the best
psychological. The physical sciences were deemed
poor, despised, beggarly elements, informing one of
nothing but a few facts relating to dead and inert
matter. Those who cultivated them were esteemed
as poor in spirit as were the sciences in their subjects.
No one cared to listen to them; no one honoured
them. If a man succeeded in making any great
discoveries which gave him a control over any of the
forces of nature, so much the worse for him; he did
it, not by research but by converse with the evil one,
and he might bless his fate if he had not to answer
before an ecclesiastical tribunal the charge of dealing
with the black arts. Within the last few centuries
�4
The Tendencies of
only has a change come over men’s notions in this
respect. By slow degrees at first, science won for
itself a hearing, then inquiry, then respect; within
the last hundred years it has made rapid progress,
and at last within our own day has obtained a position
which enables it to assert an equality to, if not a
superiority over, the philosophy which so long kept
it in the shade.
Now, this science affects modern thought in two
ways:—1st. By its actual discoveries it puts facts into
antagonism with many old and cherished opinions,
compelling those who are of a truth-loving nature to
give them up, and thus causes their whole system of
opinion to be shaken. Such, e.g., are the facts of
astronomy and geology, which no one can reconcile
with the explicit statements of the Bible; the facts
of ethnology and philology, to say. nothing of
criticism and history. Now these facts, established
by science, coming into direct collision with the long
cherished notions, compel men to re-examine and
seek to re-adjust their whole system of which these
notions are a part; and the process of re-adjustment
occasions the agitation and earnestness of religious
life in the present day.
But I have mentioned what I consider the weakest
influence of the physical sciences first; the second is
much more powerful, i.e., the method which physical
science pursues is directly opposed to the method of
the old philosophies with their theologies, and so far
as it prevails over the mind, must necessarily tend to
weaken the conclusions derived through their method.
The method of the old philosophies was subjective;
the method of physical science is objective. The
method of the first made clearness and consistency
of ideas the test of truth; the method of the second
depends entirely upon verification. Philosophy dares
to comprehend heaven as well as earth, the infinite
as well as the finite, within the range of its know
ledge ■ science modestly confines itself to the pheno
�Modern Religious Thought.
5
menal, and denies the possibility of all knowledge
beyond the sphere of experience. Now, I must not
stay to explain in full the antagonism thus created
between the older way of investigating truth and the
new; but you will all readily see how this scientific
method goes to the very roots of the long-cherished
philosophies and theologies and destroys them—
scatters all their beautiful ideas woven by fancy and
born of tender feelings; challenges to the proof of
their claims sentiments, opinions, and doctrines which
had been held as the most sacred verities.
And this antagonism, be it observed, is by no
means confined to religious questions, it pervades
the whole life. The scientific method is striving to
bring every thing under its control—politics, morals,
government in the family, education, all that comes
under the cognizance of man. That controversy,
e.g., just now agitated respecting the relations of
science and the study of the classical languages to
education is one form which it is taking. But, at
this time, we must confine ourselves to religious
aspects.
Now, it seems to me, in looking attentively upon
the manifestations of this newly-awakened religious
life, with its controversies and divisions, that there
are two, or perhaps I may say three, distinct ten
dencies clearly in action which will necessarily deter
mine the future; and if we can accurately ascertain
these tendencies we shall go far to foresee that future,
as well as to comprehend the present. I shall men
tion them successively :—
The first is a tendency which is purely and uncom
promisingly conservative. It falls back upon ancient
prestige and refuses to yield one iota to modern
innovations and methods. It finds its embodiment
in the Roman Catholic Church. The tendency is
seen in active operation all over the continent as
well as in England, and, if I am not forgetting,
the re-action which indicates its energy began in
�6
The Tendencies of
France before it was inaugurated at Oxford. Speak
ing, however, just now only of this country, the
number of conversions made within the last thirty
years to Roman Catholicism sufficiently proves to the
observer its strength. For, we must recollect whilst
a great number of the working classes (and of those
a large proportion was educated in Scotch Presby
terianism) have gone over to that Church, there have
also been converts made from the ranks of men of
great literary attainments and position, and of acute,
cultured, logical minds. And the tide is swelling
instead of diminishing, and I believe will go on
swelling for very many years to come.. Amongst
other evidences of it I might quote the great height
to which the High Church and ritualistic movement
in the Church of England has come. It is originated
by precisely the same cause, and is in precisely the
same direction; and merely seems to differ because
accidental limitations restrain an advance into the
Roman Catholic Church. I shall have to refer to this
again; but assuming the identity of tendency which
carries some into the extremes of High Church doc
trine and ritualism, and some others on into Roman
Catholicism, we cannot but recognise the great
strength of the tendency operating in all classes
alike and proved by the numbers borne along by it.
But now, what is the meaning of this tendency, its
soul, its real significance 1 It is easy to sneer and put
it all down to the love of millinery and parade,
childish . pomp and glare, as many do; and to de
nounce it all as hypocrisy and a love of priestly
power, as many of the evangelicals do; but it is
nothing of the kind. Doubtlessly some are brought
into sympathy with it through their sesthetical tastes.
They cannot believe that the eternal God who has
made this world so beautiful and full of delight is or
can properly be worshipped where the senses bear no
part, and everything which is beautiful and grand in
its sensuous effects is excluded. They turn, there
�Modern Religious Thought.
7
fore, with weariness from the cold, bare, abominably
ugly forms of the old Protestant worship to that
which, by the sweet perfumes of its incense, the rich
harmonies of its sublime old ecclesiastical tunes and
music, and by the gorgeousness of its ceremonial
satisfies the cravings of the taste, and reveals the
divineness of sense to the soul. And in thus turning
to what meets real wants of their nature, no one can
say that they are wrong.. The taste for art is re-awak
ened everywhere, and it would be strange if it did
not show itself under religious forms as well as others,
since art has always been allied with religion. It is
true that with much that is beautiful a great deal
which is absurd (to us) is mixed up in the Roman
Catholic forms ; but the earnest mind gets the knack
of disregarding the absurd and of.resting with joy in
the beautiful. Whether as the sesthetical tastes of
the country become more thoroughly developed and
cultivated something truer and more real than the
Roman Catholic forms will not be required, is a ques
tion I cannot now stay to discuss. But, at present, I
can have no doubt that the sesthetical culture which
has re-awakened the love of Art in this country is
bearing many along the path which leads to Roman
Catholic forms of worship.
Strong as this influence is, however, it is not the
principal one which is causing the great conservative
religious reaction. There is one which is affecting
the most earnest minds more powerfully still. I
mean the longing after intellectual certainty and rest in
those great questions which relate to God, the soul,
and eternity. The rise of the scientific spirit and
method having, as we have seen, undermined the
ground upon which men had rested their theological
beliefs, has compelled them to seek a more solid basis.
Many a one discovers that, after years of search, no
such solid basis is to be found, excepting in an
absolute submission of the intellect to divinely in
spired living authority, such as is presented only in
�8
The Tendencies of
the Roman Catholic Church. The attempt to make
the Bible such a basis entirely fails them, as it must
fail every one of logical and analytical habits of
thought. The evidences of its divine inspiration are
too imperfect to deceive persons of such habits. And
then the process of interpretation is too uncertain to
meet their wants. They are therefore shut up to the
alternative of renouncing all hope of obtaining a
basis for absolute beliefs, or of submitting their
intellect to the only church which pretends to have
authority from God to teach absolute, positive truth.
Several conditions determine them in embracing the
latter alternative. 1st. The assumption that absolute
certainty is necessary, and that God in himself, the
soul and its eternal destiny must be known. You
will find this most impressively illustrated in that
strangely painful and instructive book published a
few years since, the “ Apologia pro Vita sua,” by Dr
Newman. You there learn, that in the very beginning
of his career he started with the supposition that
absolute certainty in such solemn questions is essen
tial to the soul’s salvation, and that this supposition
inspired his inquiries to the end. At first he thought
he would find it in the Bible, but increasing know
ledge and the development of his reasoning faculties
undeceived him, and enabled him to see that certainty
is not to be had there. He then turned to the
Anglican church and hoped to discover in it a divine
authority which would meet his wants. But the
assaults of his opponents from the evangelical side
drove him back from one position to another, until
he found himself contending for principles which
demanded an unqualified surrender to the claims
of Roman Catholicism. His was too honest, -too
noble, too logical a mind not to make the surrender.
A few sentences have summed up his autobiography;
but it was a long process of heroic struggle, of
agonizing doubts and difficulties, of ardent efforts
and aspiration, towards the highest object that can
�Modern Religious Thought.
9
call forth the desires of man. No nobler, because no
more truth-loving soul of man has revealed itself to
us in this generation than is revealed in that book,
sacrificing itself to the conclusions of an irresistible
logic and abandoning all the fruits of its culture and
all the advantages of outward position because ab
solute certainty of faith can only be had upon such
terms. And Dr Newman represents a whole class of
minds which have gone through, or are going through,
a similar experience. They cry for certainty, and it
is nowhere offered to them with any show of con
sistency, excepting in connection with dogmas which
often at first horrify them—transubstantiation, the
immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, and such
like. But in proportion to the intensity of the cry,
and the logical consistency of their minds, will they
be compelled to modify their horror, and accept of
the only conditions upon which they can possibly find
the rest they seek.
But this is not all. There is another influence
besides this longing after intellectual certainty which
is leading men in the same direction. What I have
been saying applies for the most part only to the
most thoughtful minds; what I now refer to applies
rather to those of a deep emotional nature. I mean
the sense of sin as a something not belonging to one,
but which has yet taken possession of one's life, for
which an account must be given, and punishment
endured, unless pardon can be obtained from God.
It is true that this sense of sin is founded upon very
vague notions, but in some meditative religious
natures, it becomes the deepest and strongest passion
of the soul. Consequently all churches attempt to
deal with it, and to find for their disciples terms of
forgiveness. The protestant churches, by the necessity
of their theological principles, can only offer terms
which are purely subjective. To be delivered from
sin you must come into the condition of faith. But
how am I, wrestling, groaning, agonizing under the
�io
The Tendencies of
sense of my sin, to know whether I have come into
this condition ? By certain signs and marks which
it requires an analytical process of the intellect, to
ascertain j or by certain feelings of assurance which
can only arise when the internal struggles are over,
and having no authority but their own existence, may
to many appear all delusions and snares of the devil.
Both processes are purely subjective and can only
satisfy the mind in a certain stage of its culture.
But the tendency to objective thought, superinduced
by the influence of physical science, is drawing the
mind out of, and beyond this stage; and conse
quently is leaving the protestant churches without
the means of appeasing this sense of sin. In its deep
agonysof remorse and fear, therefore, the sin-conscious
soul is turning to the Roman Catholic church, which
claims to have received authority from its divine
head to forgive sins upon earth. Not by a subjective
process impossible to the sorrow-stricken soul, but
by a solemn declaration pronounced by the priest in
the name of his God, that church sends home its
penitents cleansed, forgiven, and in peace.
And thus we see, that two most powerful crav
ings of human nature are sustaining and intensi
fying daily the tendency which is leading people to
Roman Catholicism, namely the cravings for rest and
peace to both the intellect and the conscience.
The one craving characterises the more masculine
minds, the other the more feminine ; but both alike
lead to the one result, and swell that great conser
vative religious-reaction which is one of the greatest
tendencies and characteristics of the present day.
The second tendency at work in society which we
have to notice, is. carrying people in quite the
opposite direction, and seems to prognosticate a com
plete revolution in religious thought and feeling. It
originates in those influences of the physical sciences
and the method they have introduced to which I have
�Modern Religious Thought.
11
already referred. By rigidly insisting that every
hypothesis, every belief, shall be brought to the test
of fact, and that nothing shall be received as a part
of our knowledge which has not been verified, it
necessarily excludes a large portion of theological
dogmas from the field even of our enquiries and
places the rest upon a basis that gives them a
character in which they are scarcely recognised as
the same. In other words, it limits our knowledge
to the phenomenal, and pronounces all which lies
beyond to be nothing but the object of a vague faith
and altogether uncertain.
The first form in which this tendency of thought
reveals itself in connection with religion is generally
in the questioning and the renouncing the validity of
the Christian evidences. Employing its method of
rigid proof in the. construction of the rules of
historical criticism, and applying them to the evi
dences it pronounces them to be purely fabulous and
untrustworthy; and thus, at one stroke, overthrows
the whole system of Christianity and leaves those
needing a religion to find for it some other base.
But it does not rest even here. It must not be
concealed that the scientific method re-opens the
whole question concerning the divine existence, and
necessitates the grounding of one’s faith upon some
other reasons than those which sufficed men in former
days. It would be presumptuous in any one to say
that the devout recognition of a personal God is im
possible to those thoroughly imbued with the scientific
method, and when one who is so great an expon
ent of it, and possesses so acute a mind as J. S. Mill,
has seemed to pronounce the Argument from Design
conclusive; but most certainly if we cannot transcend
phenomena and have no knowledge beyond that
acquired by our experience, that recognition of God
is founded upon something which is distinct from
knowledge and can never become absolutely certain.
Accordingly it must be owned that a large number
�12
The Tendencies of
of those who follow this method set aside the divine
existence as a question lying altogether beyond the
reach of their faculties. They do not deny it; but
they say they cannot affirm it. They are not atheists,
but they are intellectual sceptics, whilst on the
other hand those of them who still cling to the
belief in God, justify their position in tones which
indicate they feel that their conclusions are not final.
I hope to show you in the course of lectures I shall
commence next Sunday night some real grounds for
this recognition; but to-night I am merely the
historian, and indicate what is passing around us.
Now that this scientific and revolutionary tendency
in matters of religion is already strong and powerful,
no one who knows anything of what is passing
around him will deny. That it will become stronger
and more powerful there are abundant reasons to
lead us to conclude. Evidently science is only just
beginning its successful career. We are only on
the threshold of its discoveries and its triumphs.
As it progresses it will take firmer hold of society
and bring more and more of the people under the
influence of its spirit. As people are brought under
the influence of its spirit they will apply its methods
to all the spheres of their thought. And thus
religion itself must come more and more under its
control.
There are then two great tendencies at work in
modern society leading to the consolidation of two
great parties. The one is conservative and finds its
full embodiment in the Roman Catholic church.
The other is revolutionary, and finds its representa
tives in the Comtists, the Positivists, the men of
scientific pursuits and studies, and all those who
make experience the only source of their knowledge.
The first demands the submission of your intellect;
the second offers you proofs. The watchword of the
first is, Authority; the watchword of the second is,
Verification.
�Modern Religious Thought.
13
But now, between these two parties lying on the
extreme right and the extreme left, there is another,
scarcely the embodiment of a tendency, but the
representative of a struggle—the party of compromise
that organises itself into the protestant churches.
Ever since the rise of protestantism its churches have
represented the spirit of compromise. Renouncing the
authority of the Roman Catholic church, they have
endeavoured to establish an authority of their own.
Conceding the right of private or individual judgment,
they have restricted its exercise by anathematising
those who did not affirm the orthodox conclusions.
The living energies of thought which gave rise to
protestantism have never long found shelter within
the pale of its churches, but have from time to time
been cast out as heretical and dangerous. These
living energies have never served any good purpose
within the churches but to create schisms, which
when created generally leave those cast out to settle
down as compromising and dogmatic as the churches
they have left. In the meanwhile the men of real
living thought withdraw outside the churches and
look on with indifference or scorning.
In the revived religious life sprung up of late years,
these churches have been true to themselves. To
recede to the old ground of Roman Catholicism
would be too humiliating after three centuries of
schism. To advance upon the free, scientific ground,
would be their utter destruction. So they attempt a
compromise. This attempt is openly avowed by the
more courageous and advanced (so called) Broad
Church party; but not less is it made by others.
Their chief difficulty is in dealing with scripture, and
reconciling not only its historical and scientific facts,
but its dogmas and morals with modern knowledge.
The strictly evangelical sections endeavour to get
over the difficulty by a disingenuous system of inter
pretation, in which, through a juggle of words, they
would fain make it appear that all along the teaching
�14
The Tendencies of
of scripture has anticipated modern discoveries and
methods of thought. The Broad Church section dis
tinctly owns that the science and history of the Bible
are inaccurate; and that it is only the religious ideas
which can be deemed inspired. But with this inspir
ation of religious ideas they associate the stupendous
dogma of the incarnation, and thus necessitate the
belief in a miracle which is the most repulsive and
incredible to be found in the whole Bible. And
what makes the position of this party the more un
tenable is that they endeavour to sustain it, not upon
the ground of objective proof, but by appeals to
sympathies and subjective religious experiences. The
criticism which they boldly apply to the historical
and scientific facts of the Bible they lay aside when
they come to deal with its religious and moral ideas;
and thus by an abandonment of the outworks of the
old system of belief, they hope to retain the citadel.
The hope, however, is fallacious. The system of
Christianity is one complete whole ; it was the growth
of many centuries, consolidated and established under
special conditions and forms of thought, which gave
a complete unity to its doctrines and facts, its
theology and history. No one can separate the one
part from the other, without the destruction of the
authority of both. The Broad Church party is, in
consequence, the weakest amongst all the parties into
which the Protestant churches are divided.. They
are impotent against the evangelicals, because they
dare not deny the incarnation and the supernatural
authority of Christ; they are impotent against the
sceptics, because they dare not affirm the accuracy of
the historical and scientific facts. Their existence
can only last for a day.
But, indeed, that must be the fate of all parties
participating in this compromising spirit, whether
they carry it out boldly or timidly,, consciously or
unconsciously. Eclecticism is only the refuge of
weaker minds that dare not adventure themselves
�Modern Religious Thought.
T5
upon the consequences of principles. It is tolerated
only so long as the period of indecision lasts.
Whilst controversy is raging and victory is undecided
many find comfort in adopting so much of the beliefs
of both sides that when transition has to be made to
the side finally victorious, it can be made without
difficulty and apparently without sacrifice. Instantly
however, that one side has gained the victory all such
eclecticism disappears. The victorious truth draws
all thought within its own circle and all minds
become subordinated to its influence. When therefore
the Protestant Churches in the very first period of
the Reformation gave themselves up to the spirit of
compromise, and endeavoured in sharply defined
creeds to amalgamate the old principle of authority
and the methods of the subjective theologies with the
new spirit of free enquiry and the method of objective
proof, they doomed themselves necessarily to a
temporary existence, and declared themselves incap
able of serving more than the wants of the day. It
is impossible they should last beyond the controversy
between the conservative religious reaction and the
revolutionary scientific spirit. These are so diametri
cally opposed to each other that there can be no final
compromise between them. The one must conquer
the other; and when such conquest comes, the
Protestant Churches will cease to be. And which of
the two great systems, between which the real strife
lies, will ultimately conquer, I need hardly say.
Those cravings of our human nature, that the system
of Roman Catholicism alone can meet, are not
necessary to us. They have been superinduced under
special forms of culture. They arise out of misconcep
tions originated in the days of man’s infancy,
ignorance, and superstition. There are no facts in
the universe known to us which justify them. They
are the pure creations of a mind which has abandoned
itself to its own subjectivity, and lost all power of
.distinguishing between its fancies and objective facts.
�16
The Tendencies of
On the other hand, the progress of the scientific
spirit is sure. Its advance is irresistible. It rests
solely on verified facts. Once verified they can
never become false. It can never, therefore, be com
pelled to recede from a position it has gained. Its
method, too, takes entire possession of the mind when
once it is understood, and imparts to it a culture
which becomes universal. Then, all subjects come
under its investigation, and every idea is subjected
to analysis, testing, and proof. This culture, which
the most urgent wants and principles of human
nature will cause to be generally diffused, will thus
gradually uproot those abnormal but powerful
cravings which lead men towards Roman Catholi
cism ; and the system which they necessitate and
sustain will then of itself expire. It may take very
many generations before the work is done; but the
end is sure.
Now, I trust it is no egotism for me to say on this,
the anniversary of the commencement of the services
in these rooms, that it is because the tendencies I
have described as at work in society have been
working powerfully in our minds, we find ourselves
occupying our present position here. In the midst
of the old churches we sought for certainty to
find out God’s existence, our own destiny. We
felt the pressure of sin ; the sense of its guilt wrung
our hearts with agony; we cried to the churches for
succour. And what did the churches for us ? They
endeavoured to satisfy us with metaphysical dogmas,
fancied facts, dreams of peace. But that would not
do. We had come under the influence of the
scientific method and spirit. We analysed their
dogmas, and found they had no substance or base.
We investigated the evidence of their facts and found
it invalid. We endeavoured to realise their peace,
and it vanished into nothingness, and only sorrow
was left behind. Roman Catholicism, Protestantism,
�Modern Religious Thought.
17
failed to help us to the truth and give us rest of
intellect and conscience. Unless we were to abandon
ourselves to absolute scepticism, nothing remained
but to boldly follow the path along which the
scientific spirit led, and accept of its conclusions
whatever they might be. The course was a trying one!
Prejudices and old associations had to be rooted up;
intense feelings had.to be suppressed; dear friends
wounded. But what could we do 1 We were
perishing for the want of the truth. We saw it lay
in that course or in none at all. We dare not give
up the hope and duty of attaining it—no, by our
soul’s life we dare not. We resolved, not in the spirit
of compromise, but in the spirit of holy daring, to follow
it whithersoever it led. But the old churches could
not tolerate this. Their superstitions became alarmed.
Our earnestness disturbed their peace. In return,
they troubled and vexed us sore. We had no heart
for such paltry strifes. They had nothing to offer us as
compensation for enduring such evils, so we left them
to their' fate and came hither.. If I were a Hebrew
of the olden time, this night would I raise an altar in
this room, and inscribe thereon Ebenezer. The year
has been to us one of happy progress. As soon as
the first excitement had gone off, the congregation
settled down in numbers far exceeding my expecta
tion. It has not diminished since. A few have left
us whose tardy steps could hardly keep apace with
our advance, and are seeking now, I presume, by a
futile compromise, to satisfy the want of their souls.
But their places have been filled by others, whose
sympathies are closer with us, and who, it may be
presumed, have counted the cost the truth will incur,
But our satisfaction arises not from those outward
things. The absolute freedom we here enjoy has
given an earnestness and a power to our enquiries we
had never known before. We seem to ourselves to
have been as travellers previously toiling with painful
steps and wounded feet up steep ascents, through
�i8
The Tendencies of
bramble and through marsh, shut in by high hills or
thick woods, and only here and there getting glimpses
of the land beyond. Now, we have come on the open
spaces and the rich plateaux; the light of Heaven
falls clearly; far and wide the horizon spreads on
every hand on closing scenes of God’s beauty and
goodness ; we advance rapidly, and every breath is
full of joy. Our essential principles, indeed, have
not changed since the day we entered these rooms.
But they have been wrought out to their conclusions.
We have left, too, far behind us the cant phrases, the
technical language, the accommodating forms of
speech, the unmeaning shibboleths of the churches.
We speak plainly the thoughts which are within us ;
and the thoughts in the new language sometimes
themselves seem new. But whatever may be the
form of truth to which we have attained, we do not
hold it as final. We have learned that to us all truth
is not absolute, but relative. As we ourselves grow,
the truth itself is modified, and assumes higher and
purer forms. And we hope, as long as life lasts, to
grow. We enter, therefore, upon the second year of
the services here simply in the attitude of scholars,
not satisfied with the past, but crying unto the
Great Fountain of light, More light, 0 God ! give to
our souls more light!
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The tendencies of modern religious thought
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cranbrook, James
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 18 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Date of publication from British Library catalogue.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1597
CT201
CT209
CT154
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The tendencies of modern religious thought), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Religious thought-19th century
Religious Thought-Great Britain-19th Century
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dd5128f26d01a08c418a43d42efdbbd6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=az4wKB2ITRebq6EX4Z32vdBzvkY9oN91HI02JqKqIwcso2pzIy8LmidLORv7%7Ez-lr4xl1lbZxG97NZifXsKq9WYvkhYViqBOwU%7EkdPeYsIryCxvZ49R0PBgxAvzVywv3-OSHq3chPa0xqCoi2ruRYQewwE03hZytHzSEL6GgIkhdJOHe3uZ7BbQTHxbmpCbHuJG6Cp2%7E0eWQKYS7Vt6CtzUM9tBZSfhQPx2IoTXhoA%7EZETFR3QFvfyxiocCFPnPQGaC-X7IGE9%7E9UGDc2WhRHiALzm7V9nQ644epcwKT2yYe2ghIvotZlZm4XePD5QelccxHDW-lGJ8e0BIaVzpkAg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
daba3a788f1a4237c54f99cdd2eda3a2
PDF Text
Text
ON SOME EVIDENCES
AS TO THE VERY
EARLY USE OF IRON,
AND ON CERTAIN
OLD BITS OF IRON IN PARTICULAR.
BY
ST. JOHN VINCENT DAY, C.E., F.R.S.E.,
t
'
FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SCOTTISH SOCIETY OF ARTS, MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL
ENGINEERS, MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS IN SCOTLAND, HON. LIBRARIAN
PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF GLASGOW.
Read before the Philosophical Society of Glasgow,
April 12, 1871.
EDINBURGH:
EDMONSTON
AND
1871.
DOUGLAS.
��ON
SOME
EVIDENCES
AS TO THE VERY
EABLY USE OF IBON, ETC.
The object of this paper is to show that a considerably remoter
archaeology can be claimed for the employment by man of iron than
has hitherto been generally accepted. That iron was amongst the
very earliest, if not in fact the earliest, of the metals with which
man was acquainted, we have abundant literary evidence. Until
lately, however, that has stood alone, unconfirmed by any cotem
porary testimony. Now, however, we are in a position to shew,
from two kinds of cotemporary proof, that iron was well known to
man, in some parts of this earth at least, during the very remotest
ages which it is possible with any degree of certainty to reach.
The two kinds of evidence to which I allude are—
1st. That of the hieroglyphs.
2nd. Certain material specimens.
These two evidences appear now not only to confirm each other,
but what is more important still, establish the solid truth of that
literary testimony which in these latter days has come to be
doubted; and although not yet complete, a further confirmation of
the extremely ancient uses of iron may confidently be expected
ere long as one result, of researches into traditions and the com
parison of myths,—the inquirers therein engaged having already
so well succeeded in evoking little grains of truth out of whole
mountains of myth.
When examining the works of those authors who have writtenon
the history of iron, I have frequently noticed the scantiness of their
attempts to indicate what is until now absolutely ascertained, as dis
tinct from that which is handed down as tradition concerning the use
of that metal in pre-historic ages; and I am disposed to believe such
defect merely as a result of the trust which those authors appear to
have placed in the teachings of a certain modern school, which, going
dead against all literary testimony, declares for, and only for, the ex
tremely high antiquity of copper and its alloys. When, too, certain
researchers into the “Antiquity of Man”—supposing him to have
been evolved by successive spontaneous efforts from an extremely
low type of organic existence—claim that the appearance of iron
�4
Iron Used by Egyptians before Persian Invasion.
on the scene marks so decided a step on the road to a higher
civilization, it is strange, indeed, that their inquiries into the
remotest limit of time, when man became an iron-using animal, bear
no stamp upon them indicative of having been directed into the
earliest ages of which, and in countries where, we have positive
cotemporary testimony—actual cotemporary fact to rest upon—
rather than that a continued trust should be vouchsafed to the very
uncertain records and theories as concerning other countries and
still later ages, but founded only on mere probabilities.
Writers on what has hitherto been defined as the early history of
iron we have had in abundance, since the time when Layard de
posited in our British Museum the metallurgical trophies of his
excavations in that Interamnian plain where once stood the As
syrian Nineveh and Babylon; or since Rhind, after exploring the
tomb of Sebau, wherein he is reported to have discovered, “on the
massive doors of the inner repositories, hasps and nails, still as
lustrous and as pliant as on the day they left the forge,”* contended
that iron was extensively used in Greece between the epoch of the
Homeric poems (from 900 B.c. to 1000 B.c.) and the full historic
period of Greece, and that within about the same interval, if not pro
bably with an earlier commencement, the same metal was more or
less completely displacing bronze in Egypt. It is inferred by
Rhind—at least so I gather from Dr Percy’s remarks—that Sebau
was born about b.c. 68, and died B.c. 9 ; but we shall hereafter see
that iron was known to and used by the Egyptians many centuries
earlier, also that, before the time of the Persian invasion under
Cambyses, there was enough iron in the country, as Belzoni has
pointed out, to make instruments of agriculture with. Plate
I. is a full-sized picture of a sickle + found by Belzoni under
* Metallurgy: Iron and Steel. By John Percy, F.R.S. London. 1864.
i* Extract from Narrative of the Operations and Recent Discoveries within the
Pyramids, Temples, Tombs, and Excavations in Egypt and Nubia, etc., etc. By
G. Belzoni, a.d. 1821. Published by Murray.
“ Two other articles were found in this excavation, of which one is a tomb
stone, and the other an iron sickle” (p. 162)...................
‘ ‘ But the iron sickle, to which I would call the attention, was found under
the feet of one of the sphinxes on its removal. I was present; one of the men
took it up and gave it to me. It was broken into three pieces, and so decayed
that the rust had eaten even to the centre. It was rather thicker than the
sickles of the present time, but exactly of the common shape and size of ours.
It is now in the possession of Mr. Salt. The question is, At what time were
these statues placed there ? They could not have been deposited subsequently
to the age of the Ptolemies ; for it appears that since the time of Cambyses, who
�Philological Conclusions in Error.
5
the feet of one of the sphinxes at Karnak,—a sufficient proof
that, at about B.c. 600, the blacksmith’s art was well understood
and practised in Upper Egypt; so that whilst the testimony I hope
to adduce may be no refutation of Rhind’s view in regard to
iron displacing bronze at the particular time he mentions—for
it is quite within the limits of probability that when alloys were
discovered iron may have for a time fallen into disuse—yet the
evidence to be hereafter dealt with will, I venture to believe, shew
that to Egypt, and not Greece, must our attention be addressed for the
solution of all problems bearing on the most ancient metallurgy.
By the distinguished leader in another branch of modern investi
gation the true history of iron has had a thick veil cast over it. I
allude to what Professor Max Müller, who, reasoning on a purely
philological basis, has propounded; but on examining his great work,
the Science of Language, it is easy to see that he has been largely
influenced by M. Morlot’s conclusions, for he quotes M. Morlot
extensively; and from the use of certain words in the Odyssey,
concludes that the Greek language was spoken before the discovery
of iron, and that iron certainly was not known previous to the
breaking up of the Aryan family. But Professor Max Müller has
overlooked apparently what may be gathered as to the early use of
iron from another great branch of the human family—-namely, the
Semitic—to which branch both modern Coptic and ancient Egyptian
belong, as indeed he himself has pointed out.
*
The testimony
of the ancient Egyptian language, as well as modern Coptic, have
of late thrown a flood of light on the subject of this inquiry.
Yet, before passing on from Professor Max Müller, I wish to
bring to your notice—for I should fail in my duty were I to
omit doing so—another still more remarkable error into which he
has fallen, by trusting it would seem, too exclusively to language
science. This error occurs in the following sentence :—“ In the
Homeric poems, knives, spear-points, and armour were still made
destroyed the gods of Egypt, the country has never been invaded, so as to
compel the people to conceal their idols; and it is evident that these statues
had been hidden in a hurry, from the irregular and confused manner in which
they lie. Now, as the sickle was found under the statue above mentioned, I
think it a sufficient proof that there was iron in the country long before the
invasion of the Persians, since the Egyptians had enough to make instruments of
agriculture with. Sickles of the same form are to be seen in many agricultural
representations in the tombs,” etc., etc. (p. 163).
* Lectures on the Science of Language (p. 316). London, 1866. First Series.
Longmans.
�6
Stone, Bronze and Iron Dogma-
of copper; and we can hardly doubt that the ancients knew a
process of hardening that pliant metal, most likely by repeated smelting
and immersion in water.”*
Now, what exactly the phrase “repeated smelting” may mean, as
used in this connection, it is difficult to assert; but as smelting
involves heating, I conclude that the phrase should rather be “ re
peated heating.” But whether I am correct or not in that inference
is of no consequence ; for, as a pure matter of certainty, it is well
known that, unlike iron, copper is not hardened by immersion or
cooling in water, but', on the contrary, it is softened thereby;
indeed, it is the constant practice of coppersmiths and other
craftsmen, when desiring to soften that metal or its alloys, to
heat it and cool it in water, whilst it is hardened by rolling,
beating, or pressing ; and one of these latter operations was
doubtless not unknown to the Greek makers of knives and spear
heads in copper.
The paucity of researches bearing on the knowledge and use of
iron in pre-historic ages can, as I have already hinted at, be scarcely
any other than the direct outcome of that dogma propounded
by the Danish and Swedish antiquaries—Nillson, Steenstrup,
Forchammer, Worsaâe, and others—which teaches that men began
to use tools of stone, then bronze, and lastly iron.
As to the beginnings of man, in some parts of the world
at least, to do his work with stones, it is no business of
ours just now to enter upon, nor, indeed, does there seem
occasion to do so, for the conclusions in that connection appear,
so far as an incomplete testimony can go, well founded. But
concerning the further question, as to whether bronze and iron
came universally to be employed in the order of succession assigned
to them by the progressive developists, amongst each of the sections
of mankind now grouped according to the character of their
language into the Aryan, Semitic, and Turanian families, we have,
I believe, sufficient grounds to question.
It is asserted, as I have already mentioned, that the appearance
of iron on the scene is an index to certain guides of our own
times, that a higher civilization prevailed than where bronze is
present, as may be gathered from the following passage of Sir
Charles Lyell’s writings, when quoting M. Morlot,+ he says:—“The
next stage of improvement that is manifested by the substitution of
* Lectures on the Science of Language (p. 230). London, 1868, Second
Series. Longmans.
t Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles, tom. vi., p. 292.
�Proto-Egyptian Evidence.
7
iron for bronze indicates another stride in the progress of the art.
Iron never presents itself except in meteorites in a native state; so
that to recognize its ores, and then to separate the metal from the
matrix, demands no small exercise of the power of observation and
invention.”* To the metallurgist, however, who is conversant with
the art and science of extracting metals from the ores, and of com
pounding them together as alloys, the picture at once presents a
different view; and it is indeed some satisfaction to know that the
bronze and iron order of succession does not receive the assent of
our leading living metallurgist, Dr. Percy.
That school, however, which claims the higher antiquity for the
alloy bronze seems to infer that because no iron specimens are pointed
out so old by centuries, perhaps by thousands of years, as this spear
head, that chisel, this bowl, or that hatchet (and I am not aware
that any one has yet proved that an iron specimen has been found
in the whole world which could be pronounced even so old, not to
mention older, than any one of the many bronze relics of which such
a legion exist; indeed, when we reflect upon a certain peculiarity
inherent to the metal iron, and, for our present considerations,
practically absent from the alloy bronze, it does appear scarcely
possible that a specimen of metallic iron should be found belonging
to nearly so early an age as that to which even tolerably late bronze
specimens belong; for we need only to be reminded that iron, when
exposed to the action of the air or moisture, even in a very few
years, becomes converted into an oxide, and so entirely, that it is
often not possible to recognize whether it had previously been
reduced to the metallic condition or not), iron could not have been
previously used.
The Proto-Egyptian remains, monuments, etc., in Lower Egypt
are allowed by all men of all creeds to be the oldest extant
relics of the works of the human race, (some of them not only the
most stupendous, but the most perfect in mechanical excellence
that we can ascertain to have at any time been erected on this
earth, and but for which inherent quality they would long since
have passed out of the reach of our eye-witness—as many others
of a lower order of mechanical construction, and of far later date,
have passed away, even so that their place can nowhere now be
found), and confronting these primeval structures with the bronze
and iron succession dogma, as educed more especially from Scandi
navian philosophy—how does the dogma fit the facts before us
* The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, &c., by Sir Charles Lyell,
Bart., F.R.S. London, 1863.
�8
Malleable Iron from the Great Pyramid.
in respect of Proto-Egyptian testimony. Methinks I hear the sup
porters of that dogma re-echo, “Exactly;” “for bronze, it has been
said, was compounded of such proportions of the two metals that
the resulting alloy was so hard that it would cut stone just as well
as the steel chisels and jumpers of to-day; and therefore it must
have been used in those extremely early erections.” This is, how
ever, I am disposed to believe, rather a begging of the question,
and specially illogical. For we may surely in all fairness ask,
that since bronze is so slowly oxidizable, if it really was used in
Lower Egypt, on these the very earliest works of man on the earth,
should we not find some specimens of it in or about these said
monuments? Yet, so far as I have been able to ascertain, not a
single bronze relic has been found throughout the whole Nile valley
which can with certainty be pronounced so old as either the material or
hieroglyphic testimony which we now possess regarding iron.
Biit, to turn again to the question of the priority of iron,
how does the investigation result? Not, as we should expect,
from the bronze and iron succession doctrine, but precisely the
reverse of that; for not only are iron instruments depicted in
the tomb pictures of the 4th dynasty at Memphis, but at
Memphis itself: among the monuments there metallic iron has
been found, and is now in this country of ours. Not only is metallic
iron found in that very locality to-day, but remarkably so, it has
been found in the very oldest building of all there—by universal
accord the very oldest building in the whole earth; not in that
particular building either, in such a way as to have been placed
there by accident or intention, at a time subsequent to the
erection, but in such a way that it could have been placed there
when and only when the structure was in course of erection. Now,
it may perhaps appear startling to be told that, after a lump of
malleable iron was removed by blasting it out from the solid masonry
of the Great Pyramid by Col. Howard Vyse, thirty-five years ago, and
which has been ever since deposited in the British Museum, I have
altogether failed to meet with an allusion to it by any writer on
the history of metallurgy. This piece of iron to which I refer was
not dug up amongst any rubbish or concreted mass of matter at
the foundations of the Pyramid which have there accumulated,
but near the top of the building, as the following passage and
certificates, quoted from Howard Vyse’s Pyramids of Gizeh
testify.
“ Mr. Hill discovered a piece of iron in an inner joint, near the
mouth of the southern air-channel, which is probably the oldest
�Malleable Iron from the Great Pyramid.
9
piece of wrought iron known.
*
It has been sent to the British
Museum, with the following certificates:”—
“This is to certify, that the piece of iron found by me near the mouth of the
air-passage in the southern side of the Great Pyramid at Gizeh, on Friday, May
26th, was taken out by me from an inner joint, after having removed, by blasting,
the two outer tiers of the stones of the present surface of the Pyramid ; and that
no joint or opening of any sort was connected with the above-mentioned joint, by
which the iron could have been placed in it after the original building
of the Pyramid. I also shewed the exact spot to Mr. Perring on Saturday,
June 24th.
“J. R. HILL.
“Cairo, June 25th, 1837.”
“To the above certificate of Mr. Hill I can add, that since I saw the spot at
the commencement of the blasting, there have been two tiers of stones removed,
and that if the piece of iron was found in the joint pointed out to me by Mr.
Hill, and which was covered by a large stone, partly remaining, it is impossible
it could have been placed there since the building of the Pyramid.
“J. S. PEPPING, C.E.
“Cairo, June21th. 1837.”
“We hereby certify that we examined the place whence the iron in question
was taken by Mr. Hill, and we are of opinion that the iron must have been left
in the joint during the building of the Pyramid, and that it could not have been
inserted afterwards.
“ED. S. ANDREWS.
JAMES MASH, C.E.”
“ The mouth of this air-channel had not been forced—it measured
8§ inches wide by 9| inches high—and had been effectually screened
from the sands of the desert by a projecting stone above it.”
Since then, the Great Pyramid is absolutely the oldest building
on every testimony, both that of Herodotus, the hieroglyphs, and
astronomy, as proven by the researches of Lepsius, Wilkinson,
Fergusson, Herschel, and Smyth; and whereas iron is found there
and bronze is not; and whereas it is doubtful whether any bronze
relics found near Jeezeh are so old as the Pyramid, I think the
proof is clear to the most obstinate, that for iron we must claim
an antiquity far higher than that hitherto assigned to it. Yet
some will doubtless object to such a conclusion, seeing that it is
only a single specimen which, so far, has been found. It must not,
however, be forgotten that had not this specimen been in the
* Lord Prudhoe is said to have brought from Egypt an ancient iron instru
ment ; and I thought that I had perceived the remains of an iron fastening in
the chamber containing the sideboard or shelf in the great temple at Abou
SimbaL In fact, stone could not have been quarried without metal, which must,
therefore, have been in use in the earliest times. The smelting of metals seems
to have been an antediluvian art.
�10
Nile, Mud Excavations.
position which the certificates I have read to you point out. that
is, walled in, removed from contact with the corroding action of
the atmosphere and moisture, but in an exposed position, even it
could not have come down to our day; so that if, as doubtless
there may have been, numerous tools of iron, or perhaps, nay,
almost certainly steel, left in that locality by the Pyramid builders,
it is beyond doubt that unless enclosed, as the specimen under notice
was, not one of them would have lasted until now, even in that
driest of climates—Egypt.
Before, however, we do, from the evidence afforded by this
particular specimen of iron from the Great Pyramid, commit our
selves to certaiiily assigning it to be of cotemporary date with that
monument’s erection, we have, in order to act fairly towards all
parties, to ask ourselves whether it is not probable that it may
have been surreptitiously dropped into the place by some wily
Arab worker, just after the stones surrounding its site were
blasted away—for some persons will doubtless be found sceptical
on that head—when remembering the cunning with which modern
Arabs are reported to drop fragments of pottery and burnt brick
into Nile mud excavations, on purpose to find them afterwards, so
as to entitle them to baksheesh from the exploring parties. If this
Pyramid piece of iron had been found so recently as the times when
the Nile mud excavations were carried on, wherein Arab sagacity
was evoked to practical wrong-doing in the prospect of reward, I for
one should be disposed to place little trust indeed in its testimony;
but whereas it was removed from the Pyramid some twenty years
before the time when Hekekyan Bey and Mr. Leonard Horner
began sinking pits and boring in the Delta, and in whose day it
would appear that the Arab trick was developed; and whereas the
finding of metallic specimens in the Pyramid was no part of Howard
Vyse’s inquiry, as the finding of pottery specimens in the Delta
was of the later investigators,—it does not look in any way
reasonable to suppose that the iron found its way there so
surreptitiously; and as a positive argument against the validity
of that suggestion, the very condition of the piece of iron itself
may be noticed, as shewn by figs. 1 and 2, Plate II. —namely,
*
* This Plate, as well as Plate I., show the iron specimens full size, and have
been copied from photographs specially prepared to illustrate this paper.
My friend, W. Petrie, has been kind enough to spend much time, at my
request, in the examination of this piece of iron from the Great Pyramid; and
in writing me lately regarding it, he says,—“Thickness originally, probably
| inch. In some parts it is now L including the scale of rust, and in other
parts it thins off to nothing. The side^having the label upon it is much
�Iron Reduced without Fusion.
11
the fact of its having pieces of nummulite limestone—indeed, the
trace of a nummulite itself—of which very stone the Pyramid is built,
still adhering to it; and this condition of the piece of iron
certainly looks like valid evidence of its having been built into the
Pyramid, and therefore cotemporary with the erection of that
monument. Yet we still require evidence from other sources to
ratify our conclusions, and which is happily forthcoming. But,
before speaking of that further evidence, I wish to consider another
matter.
It is asserted by many persons now-a-days, who, it would appear,
are but little versed in metallurgic science, that iron indicates a
further acquaintance with metallurgic art than bronze indicates.
This, I believe, is a conclusion not only erroneous, but one which
no practical metallurgist would assent to. Looking broadly at the
face of metallurgic science, it is scarcely possible to point out a simpler
and more readily occurring result, than the reduction of iron ores to
the metallic condition, in the manner wherein that was effected prior
to the modern invention of cast iron. We must remember that
there is not a tissue of evidence that cast iron was known to the
ancients, although certain writers, and amongst them a well known
member of this Society, Mr. James Napier, has written, that the
reduction of iron ore is performed by mixing the oxide of the
metal “with coal or other carbonaceous matters, and subjecting
them to a heat of sufficient intensity to fuse them!
*
Now, it is
well ascertained, as the result of a very long experience, that iron
may be reduced from the oxides to the metallic state without
fusion; indeed, in the most perfect blast furnace operations, the
iron is reduced by carbonic oxide before the charge reaches that
portion of the furnace where fusion takes place (the smelting zone
of Scheerer). When fusion does take place, we get from the
rougher than the other side; and on this side is a trace of a nummulite, in
lighter colour than the iron, concreted on it; and there is also a nodule of stone,
A inch diameter, projecting from the surface, and sinking into the rusty mass.
Judging from general appearances and weight, not more than half of what now
remains of it consists of rust, the remainder is probably yet metallic. The
colour of the rust is the usual dark-brown or blackish, not reddish ; and it is a
very hard and solid kind of rust, like the magnetic iron ore. It has evidently
been flexible, tough wrought-iron. ”
* Ancient Workers and Artificers in Metal. By James Napier, F.C.S., &c.
London, 1856. P. 132.
And Sir Charles Lyell, as if borrowing his information from Mr. Napier, goes
somewhat farther, when he writes—“To fuse the ore requires an intense heat,
not to be obtained without artificial appliances, such as pipes inflated by the
human breath, or bellows, or some other suitable machinery.”
�12
Iron at least Coeval with Bronze.
furnace either cast iron or crude steel, the iron being combined
with a portion of the carbon of the charge. From what we know
of the most ancient methods of reduction, the fusion of the metal
was by them impossible. Hence the attempts in modern times to
extol the difficulty of iron-making, by supposing its fusion to have
been necessary, and therefore raising it high above the state of
knowledge requisite for the more complex operations of forming an
alloy out of two dissimilar metals, are not only incorrect but
extremely misleading. The same author, to whom I have already
referred, even goes so far as to say that “ the smelting and manu
facture of iron is surrounded with so many difficulties, and needs so
many requirements and such skill, that we would expect it to have
been amongst the last of the metals that were brought into use.”
Now, from what has been said, and from what follows, it will,
I believe, be admitted. that not only is iron the very first metal
which we should expect to find brought into use, merely on account
of the simplicity by which it is reduced from its ores—namely, by
heating the oxides in contact with carbon, and maintaining that
contact for a length of time sufficient to allow the carbon, by a
process analogous to that of cementation, to attack the oxygen to
the innermost parts of the lumps of ore, resulting finally in a mass
of malleable iron or a crude steel, ready to be re-heated and
hammered into any shape desired. Whilst I have been thus led
to point out the tendency towards erroneous conclusions to which
Sir Charles Lyell and Mr. Napier have helped us, yet I must, in
due courtesy, acknowledge that the latter gentleman upsets his
own conclusions by showing, from literary and monumental proof,
that the use of iron was at least coeval with bronze, if not anterior to
it; and in so far he has helped much those who reason from the
metallurgist’s point of view; for, quoting Sir Gardner Wilkinson,
Mr. Napier says‘‘Iron and copper mines are found in the
Egyptian desert, which were worked in old times; and the monu
ments of Thebes, and some of the towns about Memphis, dating
more than 4,000 years ago, represent butchers sharpening their
knives on a round bar of metal attached to their aprons, which,
from its blue colour, can only be steel.”*
Sir Gardner Wilkinson himself, too, as late as 1847, when the third
edition of his famous five volume work-j- was published, has written—
“ The most remote point to which we can see opens with a nation
* “ The Ancient Workers in Metal ” (p. 133). London, 1856.
+ “ The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,” p. viii., Preface.
London, 1847.
�Sir Gardner Wilkinson and Mr. Basil H. Cooper.
13
possessing all the arts of civilized life already matured.” Which pas
sage contrasts strikingly with another in the same volume (p. 59),—
“ It was about the same period, b.c. 1406, that some suppose the
use of iron to have been first discovered in Greece; but whether it
*
was already known in Egypt or no, is a question hitherto unanswered.
We are surprised at the execution of hieroglyphics cut in hard
granite and basaltic stone, to the depth of two inches, and naturally
enquire, what means were employed—what tools were used? If the
art of tempering steel was unknown to them, how much more must
our wonder increase? and the difficulty of imagining any mode of
applying copper to this purpose adds to our perplexity.” It is singu
lar that so faithful and fair-dealing an author as Sir Gardner Wil
kinson, one, too, so pre-eminently versed, after his long residence in
Egypt, as to the facts relating to its history, and writing, too, so
many years after the deposit of the Great Pyramid iron specimen in
the British Museum, and being in general so exact a scholar in the
hieroglyphs, should assert that “ whether iron was already known
in Egypt or no, is a question hitherto unanswered.” Since, however,
Wilkinson, Lyell, Morlot, and certain Swedes and Danes have
published their views to the world, Egyptological research has not
stood still; on the contrary, it has been prosecuted with continued
energy, resulting, in so far as our present purpose is concerned, with
some striking corroborations of the use of iron, not only so early as
the Great Pyramid age, but much earlier still; for we find, as it has
been so learnedly set forth by Mr. Basil H. Cooper,f that there is
well ascertained hieroglyphic evidence of iron being known in
Egypt even so early as the sixth or seventh monarch of the first
dynasty.
Mr. Cooper says,—li It must, I think, be conceded . . . that
supposing iron to have been known to the Egyptians ... its
employment in the construction of those Titanic erections, the
Pyramids, ... is far more probable than the hypothesis that
none but bronze tools were used. And this, I venture to think, can
be satisfactorily demonstrated.
“ The proof is based on the extremely significant Coptic word for
iron, as illustrated and explained by the mode in which it is written
* “Hesiod fin his Opera et Dies) makes the use of iron a much later dis
covery. In Theseus’ time, who ascended the throne of Athens in 1235 b. c., iron is
conjectured not to have been known, as he was found buried with a brass sword
and spear. Homer generally speaks of brass arms, though he mentions iron.”
Trans. Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature,
and Arts. 1868.
�14
Hieroglyphic Testimony.
in the hieroglypliical inscriptions, and on the occurrence of that
word as a component element in the name of an Egyptian Pharaoh
belonging to the first dynasty. The modern Egyptian word for
iron is, in the Sahidic dialect, which is considered to be the purest
Benipi, or, with a slight change in the final vowel, Benipe. In the
hieroglyphical form of the language it is the same. . . . Its first
element is BA or BE (in the Coptic BO), meaning ‘ hard-wood,’ or
‘ stone;’ and the two letters which spell the word are often accom
panied in the hieroglyphical inscriptions by a picture of the squared
stone, such as those of which the pyramids were built. At other
times, as if to remind us that the word originally meant ‘ hard-wood,’
and that it was only in process of time that it came to denote 1 hard
ware’ in general, including such stone hardware as was going in
very early times, the picture illustrating the spelt word was a
branch or sprig. The middle syllable in the word Benipe consists
of the letters NI, with a very short vowel. It is a preposition,
answering to the English ‘ of.’ The last element in the composite
word is the syllable PE, which is the Coptic word for heaven, or the
sky. And that this is really its signification here is proved incontrovertibly by the pictures with which this syllable is wont to be
accompanied in the hieroglyphical orthography of the word Benipe ;
for it is the picture invariably used to denote the heaven, or the
sky, and is employed for no other purpose. Properly, it represents
the ceiling of a temple, which was regarded as itself a representation
of the sky, the true ceiling of the true and original temple; and the
picture is accordingly wont to be emblazoned with stars. Hence,”
says Mr. Cooper, “ the signification of the entire word Benipe, . . .
although it could not for some time be conceived why the Egyptians
should have called iron by so singular a name as ‘ stone of heaven,’
‘ stone of the sky,’ ‘ sky-stone.’ ”
“ Some time afterwards, however, it occurred to me that this was
the very name which would naturally be given to the only iron
with which men were likely to meet in a natural state. There is
but one exception to the rule that iron is never found native, like
gold and some other of the metals; that exception is in the instance
of meteoric iron, which might surely be called with propriety “ the
stone of heaven, or of the sky.” “ Moreover—and I have to thank
my friend Mr. Pengelly for reminding me of the fact, and so
materially helping me to shape out my crude speculation—meteoric
iron needs no preparatory process, as does that procured from ores,
to render it workable. In short, we may be sure, especially with
the light thrown on the matter by this invaluable Egyptian word,
�Hieroglyphic and Material Testimony Congruous.
15
bright with the radiance of that heaven which enters into its com
position, that with this wondrous matter from another sphere than
our own the working of iron began.”
Whether Mr. Basil Cooper be right or not in his final conclusion,
that meteoric iron was the first used, I think we scarcely have suffi
cient evidence to convince us, although it looks extremely probable ;
but that the hieroglyphic testimony is at one with all the other
evidence, no one, I should suppose, would now dispute , and espe
cially when we find that in Lower Egypt, in the very earliest times,
the inhabitants worked so perfectly in granite, diorite, and others
of the very hardest stones, for which copper or bronze tools would
be useless, the result of all the testimony which I have adduced
is to add another link to the completion of that chain of evidence
which in Lower Egypt pre-eminently proves the extremely high
intellectuality of man in the earliest ages which we are able,
with certainty, to fathom.
In conclusion, I have to record my obligations to the Directors
of the British Museum; and especially to the keeper there of the
Oriental Antiquities, the learned Dr. Birch, for affording me the
opportunity of having photographed, under Dr. Birch’s super
intendence, the specimens of iron referred to in this communication ;
and to my friend W. Petrie I am much indebted for frequent
visits to the British Museum, and for personally applying to the
Directors, and procuring their permission to photograph the iron
relics.
BELL AND BAIN, PRINTERS, 41 MITCHELL STREET, GLASGOW.
����PLATE II-
Showing one side with
the descriptive label
m 0 ol. Howar d Vy s e* s
han dwnt l n g.
TECE of IKON removed by blasting from the solid masonry of the Great pyramid
Copied, from a Photograph ■
FIG. 2.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
On some evidences as to the very early uses of iron, and old bits of iron in particular
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Day, John Vincent
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Edinburgh
Collation: 15 p. : ill. (2 folded plates) ; 24 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. 'Read before the Philosophical Society of Glasgow, April 12, 1871'. Includes bibliographical references. Printed by Bell and Bain, Glasgow. Inscription on title page: 'From the Author'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Edmonston and Douglas
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5272
G5274
Subject
The topic of the resource
Engineering
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (On some evidences as to the very early uses of iron, and old bits of iron in particular), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Industrial Archaeology
Iron
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d247b4f3f3c4f11979118139f1ff1540.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=DZK6jwn%7EJVUNMasdNqYZDOpf70gOhuk74dHs9Oag9qTWyR%7ERZ8Zz9Q0OL5sf8CuVmFkbgszmfqD9olv49lnNwpOd6xITJyaalryJF8SIJSUVbHGpxUuN0u4x0%7EcrysD%7EwAtMPNhVmucoqt1pSjG39OliFm2pFew9GHVAIKd0J4NTUR3-zatXxmlsorJyOZhMPiloZWf5SOONkyM73TPRyQ-xNqfcsQByEP3fyJ6uVAIHgUtWBSj3SHMcVOEZ23S5XobTNaFe-BmvVG26itHNc-GTfpZZSoTxRY%7E3m%7EUzUEcWY2y27t5dVbJiT8GVDTiAZ7ebURK84SnRIBCKZNCX9A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5bb77ea3ff2883669d9ec6faebab3286
PDF Text
Text
free Religious! association
PROCEEDINGS
AT THE
FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING
OF THE
FREE RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION,
HELD IN BOSTON,
June 1 and 2, 1871.
BOSTON:
PRESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SON.
1871.
��7
CONTENTS.
Report .....................................................................................................
List of Officers............................................................................
.
Fourth Annual Report of the Executive Committee ....
5
7
8
SESSION'S IN' TREMONT TEMPLE.
iilorning Session.
Address of the President........................................................................ 19
Essay by jJohn Weiss.............................................................................22
Remarks by C. A. Bartol........................................................................ 43
„
,, Henry Ireson........................................................................ 45
„
,, William H. Spencer.................. (.................................... 46
,,
,, T. W. Higginson.............................
47
Afternoon Session.
Essay by William J. Potter................................................................... 51
Remarks by O. B. Frothingham............................................................... 67
,,
,, Lucretia Mott.................................................................... 67
,,
,, D. A. Wasson......................................................................... 69
,,
,, John L. Russell........................
69
,,
,, Dean Clarke......................................................................... 70
,,
,, Rabbi Guinzburg.......................................................................
SEbening Session.
Essay by Ol B. Frothingham.................................................................. 70
Remarks by William Denton................................................................. 83
,,
,, J. Vila Blake....................................................................... 84
,,
,, A. M. Powell....................................................................... 86
Constitution of the Free Religious Association
88
��REPORT.
The Free Religious Association held its Fourth Annual Meet
ing in Boston, on the 1st and 2d of June, 1871.
The opening session, for the transaction of business and for
addresses on the Report of the Executive Committee, was held in
the Parker Fraternity Hall, Thursday, June 1st, 7.30 p.m. ; the
President, Octavius B. Frothingham, in the chair.
The Record of the preceding Annual Meeting was read by the
Secretary, and accepted.
The President announced that the first business in order would
be the proposition, which had been advertised with the notices of
the meeting, to amend the Constitution so as to make five mem
bers of the Executive Committee constitute a quorum, — the
reason for the change being that, since it now requires a majority
of the Committee to make a quorum, and several members reside
in distant parts of the country, it is frequently found difficult to
secure the attendance of a sufficient number for the transaction
of business. The amendment, which appends to the third article
of the Constitution the words, “ Five members of the Executive
Committee shall constitute a quorum,” was put to vote and passed
unanimously.
Richard P. Hallowell, Treasurer of the Association, read his
Report ; by which it appeared that the receipts of the year (by
balance from last account, membership-fees and donations, sale
of publications, and proceeds from lectures) had been $2,355.59 ;
expenditures (for last Annual Meeting, Western Conventions,
Boston Lectures, publications and correspondence), $2,694.53 ;
�6
leaving a deficit, due the Treasurer from the Association, of
$338.94. Mr. Hallowell explained that a considerable portion
of this deficit belonged to the lecture account, and was guaranteed
by persons specially interested in the Lectures, but not yet paid.
The Report was accepted.
The Committee on the nomination of officers reported that they
proposed no change in the present Board, with the exception that
in place of Mr. Tiffany as Director, who wished to be released
on account of ill-health, they had put the name of Thomas W.
Higginson, and in place of Mr. Higginson as Vice-President they
had inserted the name of John T. Sargent, — it being quite
important that one of the Vice-Presidents should be a resident of
Boston. (Rowland Connor, one of the Vice-Presidents elected a
year ago, had already resigned his place on the Committee, having
removed to Milwaukie.)
At a later hour in the session the ballot on officers was taken,
and the Report of the Committee adopted as follows: —
�1
OFFICERS.
OCTAVIUS B. FROTHINGHAM........................ New York City.
ROBERT DALE OWEN.......................................New Harmony, Ind.
MARY C. SHANNON........................................... Newton, Mass.
JOHN T. SARGENT............................................Boston, Mass.
Semtarg.
WILLIAM J. POTTER........................ ....
New Bedford, Mass.
Assistant .Secretarg.
MISS HANNAH E. STEVENSON................... 19 Mt. Vernon Street,
Boston, Mass.
^Treasurer.
RICHARD P. HALLOWELL ............................. 98 Federal Street, Bos
ton, Mass.
^Directors.
ISAAC M. WISE................................................. Cincinnati, Ohio.
CHARLES K. WHIPPLE....................................... Boston, Mass.
MRS. EDNAH D. CHENEY.................................. Jamaica Plain, Mass.
FRANCIS E. ABBOT........................................... Toledo, Ohio.
JOHN WTEISS............................. ....
Watertown, Mass.
THOMAS W. HIGGINSON.................................. Newport, R.I.
The Annual Report of the Executive Committee was then read
by the Secretary.
�FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
The Free Religious Association has now been four years in
existence, — a period already longer than was allowed for its career by
the prophecies of some of its enemies. We do not discover yet any signs
of the predicted early decadence. On the contrary, the past year, the opera
tions of which we here report, has been one of increased activity and special
encouragement. One of the Boston daily papers, in noticing the printed
pamphlet containing the proceedings of our last Annual Meeting, said,
“The Report gives evidence of a compact and lasting organization.” We
are confident that our Report of this year’s doings will strengthen this
evidence. Our field of work has been materially enlarged; and the receipts
of our treasury, increasing regularly each preceding year, have this last
year doubled in amount. True, our Treasurer, unfortunately, has to
report a deficit. But this is rather because no very vigorous special
measures were taken to raise the necessary sum, than because it could not
be raised. The Committee were confident that the members of the
Association would sustain them in carrying through successfully the pro
posed plan of operations for the year, and would supply the needed funds
as soon as the deficiency should become known. At the same time we
wish to say that the Committee would be relieved of much anxiety, and
could lay t'heir plans much more confidently and effectively, if their con
stituents would be more prompt and generous in their contributions. It
certainly should require no vigorous begging to secure the small sum of
money that this Association has thus far used each year. And the Com
mittee see how they could use a much larger sum to advantage, if it
should be intrusted to them.
But even if the Committee had been inactive, the Association might
still have reason to congratulate itself on the auspicious signs of the times.
So far from being the result of a transient impulse whicfh is soon to spend
itself, the Free Religious Association represents ideas and principles that
are among the most vital elements of the present age, and that are
every year gaining ascendency among thoughtful and practical people
throughout the civilized world. Unrestricted liberty of thought, the
�9
religious recognition of science, the direct application of religion to prob
lems of social and private life; spiritual fellowship on the basis not of
creed nor of alleged exclusive Revelation, but of common human aspira
tions after truth and virtue,—these surely are principles substantial
enough to give enduring vitality to any organization that shall be faithful
tn them. We might indeed specify one single feature of these general
ideas and principles, which of itself would furnish a sufficiently solid
foundation for an Association like this. We refer to the natural kinship
of the religions of the world, which is being historically and scientifically
established by the laborious research of such scholars as Max Muller, —
an idea which is gaining ground rapidly, and which must in time revolu
tionize the theology of Christendom. With this idea the Free Religious
Association from its origin has been in perfect line. And when to this
you add that it respects historic investigation of all kinds, that it is in
harmony with the progress of science, that it welcomes the largest and
finest culture, that the humane and philanthropic spirit of the age is also
one of its inspirers, that commerce and material enterprise are working
for it in opening the avenues by which nations and religions are to be
brought into a more intimate acquaintance and fellowship, — it is evident
not only that the Association has an ample and worthy field, but that many
instrumentalities are engaged in doing the work to which it is pledged.
What has been done by the Executive Committee the past year may
be summed up as follows : — PUBLICATIONS.
The usual Report of the Addresses and Discussions at our last Annual
Meeting has been published, making a pamphlet of one hundred and
twenty pages. From the nature of the subjects treated at that meeting,
this pamphlet is an excellent representation of the principles and objects
of the Association ; and our friends, who have occasion to answer inquiries
on this point, could hardly do better than to keep a supply of it on hand for
the benefit of inquirers. One address in the pamphlet, that of William
Henry Channing, on the Religions of China, was considered as having a
special interest in view of the present immigration of Chinese to this
country; and a separate edition of it was printed. A large portion of this
edition has been sent gratuitously to persons in public life who are in a
position to influence legislation with regard to the Chinese, — to members
of Congress, Editors, &c. More recently the Committee have had printed
in pamphlet form the article by Thomas Wentworth Higginson, on “ The
Sympathy of Religions;” first printed in “ The Radical.” This pamphlet
also makes a most excellent statement of one of the fundamental ideas of
2
�10
our Association. With these pamphlets added to those of preceding years ,
the Association at present possesses the following publications:—
Four Reports of Annual Meetings.
“Worship of Jesus,” by Samuel Johnson (published by aid of Association).
“ Reason and Revelation,” an Essay by W. J. Potter.
“ The Religions of China,” by W. H. Channing.
“ The Sympathy of Religions,” by T. W. Higginson.
Of the first Report, only a few copies remain; and calls for it can no
longer be supplied. The other three are yet on hand, and are still in
demand. The matter in them is mostly such that it does not grow old,
and many persons who begin their acquaintance- with the Association by
reading its last Report wish then to read those that have preceded it.
Under the head of publications last year, we announced that an arrange
ment had been made with Mr. F. E. Abbot, the Editor of the Toledo
“ Index,” by which a certain portion of that paper was devoted to the
special interests of the Free Religious Association, and edited by its
Secretary. This arrangement was harmoniously continued until the end
of the year 1870, and it is believed with advantage to the Association. It
was then abandoned, and in place of it what was deemed a better plan by
all concerned was substituted. The Association’s department was given
up, but officers and friends of the Association agreed to fill the same space
each week as editorial contributors. This they do in their individual
capacity merely, and not as officers of the Association ; and there were no
reason to note the fact here except to say that the Association has no
longer any official or special department in “ The Index.”
CONVENTIONS.
At our last Annual Meeting a resolution was passed recommending the
Executive Committee to take into consideration the question of holding
conventions, in the interest of free religious ideas, in different parts of the
country outside of Boston; and to arrange for such conventions, if they
should deem them practicable. This resolution received early and care
ful attention, and was finally referred to a Sub-committee with full power
to act in the matter. The result was that a series of three conventions
was arranged, and held in the West in the early part of last November.
For the convenience of speakers, who could not be long absent from their
regular posts of duty, the conventions were necessarily put close together
in time. But this was decided to be also an advantage from a public
point of view, since the meetings from this cause attracted more attention,
and the public impression was deepened. The points selected for the con
ventions were Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and Toledo. And at each of these
�11
places most interesting meetings, continuing two evenings and a day, were
held. The evening sessions were all attended by audiences large and
attentive. And the audiences at the sessions during the busier part of the
day were very respectable in numbers and not lacking in enthusiasm.
The opening session at each place was devoted to setting forth somewhat
specifically the principles and aims of the Free Religious Association.
At each of the other sessions some one practical question was considered,
bearing on the emancipation of religion from irrational dogma and degrad
ing superstition. The conventions were everywhere welcomed with gen
erous and hearty hospitality by local friends. They were all attended
by the President and Secretary of the Association, and by other members
of the Executive Committee ; and the Committee who had them specially
in charge were perfectly satisfied with the success of the experiment.
From what they saw and heard, they came to the conclusion that the West
is particularly open to the reception of the ideas which the Free Religious
Association represents. There are probably a hundred other places where
similar conventions could be held, and with the same success. On the
intervening Sunday between the conventions, two meetings were held by
the Secretary of the Association in Richmond, Ind., where large and
intelligent audiences gathered. If some of our lecturers could be spared
from other fields of labor for an extended tour through the Western States,
we are confident that great interest in our cause would be awakened and
great good achieved.
LECTURES.
Another enterprise, undertaken by the Executive Committee the past
year, was the management of the course of Sunday Afternoon Lectures in
Boston, now known as the “ Horticultural Hall Lectures.” These lect
ures had already been conducted by individual management for two
seasons. They had been widely reported in the newspapers of the country,
and had achieved a national reputation. Their‘agency in the circulation
of rational and liberal ideas seemed too good to be abandoned ; and, since
the individual managers did not wish to continue the responsibility longer,
the Committee had little hesitation in accepting the trust, — especially as
any funds that might be needed above what would be secured by sale of
tickets were guaranteed by private subscription. Ten lectures were given,
making a course equal, it is believed, in ability, variety, and interest to
those of preceding yearsi The audiences were large and more uniform
than at the previous courses ; and, had it not been for the fact of several
very inclement Sundays occurring in the series, it seems probable that the
course would have fully paid all expenses. There is little doubt that these
lectures, if continued, may be made self-supporting. It is a question
�however, whether, if the Association keep the management of them, it
should not be put into a condition to open them free, or nearly so, to the
public. There are many persons to whom these lectures would be daily
mental and spiritual sustenance, a vital element in their education and
life, who cannot afford to pay three or four dollars for the price of a
ticket. If some means could be provided to meet the wants of this class,
the object of these lectures'would certainly be better reached, as well as a
better example set of that equal brotherhood which it is one of the objects
of the Free Religious Association to promote. And if the plan of these
lectures could be enlarged, so as to extend perhaps through eight or nine
months of the year, and to admit of series of lectures on some specific topic
or for some specific class of people, — as lectures on science for working
men, — their usefulness might be still further increased.
RADICAL CLUBS.
One interesting fact of the year has been the formation of local free
religious associations, generally under the name of Radical Clubs, in sev
eral places through the country. These have no direct official connection
with this Association, and are only noted here as one of the signs of the
times. They have come, just as this Association from its origin has
declared they should come, out of local interest and needs ; and they vary
in their form and methods somewhat according to local demands. They
express, as they should, the free spontaneous sentiment of the communi
ties where they exist, and are not dependent for their sustenance on any
missionary subsidizing from abroad. At the same time these local organ
izations may become very efficient channels through which this Association
may communicate with the public, and are valuable aids in forwarding its
work.
CORRESPONDENCE.
The correspondence of the Association is still one of its most interesting
features, and that of this year indicates a growing attention throughout
the country to its principles and aims. Letters asking for our publica
tions, or enclosing a dollar for membership, or a larger donation, or making
some inquiry with regard to our objects and work, have come from all
sections of the Union, — from Alabama, Florida, Arkansas, Minnesota,
California, as well as from New England and New York. Our con
stituency, as shown by our correspondence, already extends through threequarters of the States. Not a few of the letters come from those who
are in connection, at least nominally, with so-called evangelical denomina
tions, but who are. believers in liberty, and are earnestly inquiring for the
�13
light of a more rational faith. And sometimes they reveal a strange
mixture of the elements in these denominations; as when a minister of
a Christian church in West Virginia, having, as he says, just attended a
conference of his sect where it was urged and resolved that the members
should individually devote themselves more zealously to the spread of
gospel truth, sends for a supply of our publications, and for any thoroughly
liberal and rationalistic tracts that we can procure, that he may distribute
them in his neighborhood, — believing, as he adds, that this is the kind of
“ gospel truth ” needed in this age.
Our correspondence abroad, also, discloses an increasing desire for
acquaintance with the Free Religious Association, and an increasing faith
in its capacity for usefulness. In England there are movements looking
toward the organization of similar societies, and a letter has been received
from one who is much interested in these attempts, suggesting co-operation
with us in certain forms of work, — as in the publication, in English, of
certain portions of Oriental religious books for popular distribution. It
may not be practical to do any thing of this kind at present, but this is a
hint of what may be.
It was stated at our last Annual Meeting that there was a prospect that
Keshub Chunder Sen, the native modern prophet of India, would visit
this country, and that your Committee were in correspondence with him,
earnestly urging him to carry this purpose into effect, and offering to
him the cordial hospitality of the members of this Association. Subse
quently he was invited also to give one of the lectures in the course last
winter at Horticultural Hall. But he was compelled to forego his hope
of coming to America. After his return to India, we received from him
the following letter: —
The Brahmo Somaj
of
India ; Calcutta,
26tA October, 1870.
owe you a hundred apologies for leaving your kind message
unanswered so long. In anticipation of your invitation, I had almost made up my
mind to visit America after making a short stay in England. But owing to illness, and
the urgent necessity of prolonging my stay in England, and cultivating a deeper
intercourse with the leading men of the place with a view to insure the success of
my mission, I was unfortunately compelled to abandon the idea. Nothing, I can
assure you, would have gladdened and encouraged me so much as a visit to your
great and glorious country; and I would surely have undertaken a voyage across
the Atlantic but for the above reasons. Should it please God, I may do so at some
future time. In the mean time accept my warmest thanks for your kind invitation,
and my cordial regards for you, the Eree Religious Association, and the whole body
of liberal thinkers in America. I am sure that, in the fulness of time, all the great
nations in the East and the West will unite and form a vast Theistic brotherhood;
and I am sure, too, that America will occupy a prominent place in that grand con
federation. Let us, then, no longer keep ourselves aloof from each otherj but coDear Brother, — I
�14
work with unity of heart, that we may supply each other’s deficiencies, strengthen
each other’s hands, and with mutual aid upbuild the House of God. Please take this
subject into serious consideration, and let me know if you have any suggestions to
make whereby a closer union may be brought about between the Brabmo Somaj
and the Free Religious Association, — between India and America, — and a definite
system of mutual intercourse and co-operation may be established between our
brethren here and those in the New World. Such union is desirable, and daily we
feel the need of it more and more. Let us sincerely pray and earnestly labor, in
order that it may be realized under God’s blessing in due time.
With brotherly love, I am ever yours,
To Wm. J. Potter,
Keshub Chunder Sen.
Secretary F. R. Assoc’n, America.
To this cordial and fraternal letter it was replied that, while the Free
Religious Association was not a church in the sense of the Brahmo Somaj,
and was not organized on any creed, even that of Theism, it was, never
theless, most heartily in sympathy with all efforts for religious emancipa
tion and reform, and most especially with this native effort in India,
which so finely illustrates the truth of one of our principles, that there is
substantial vitality in all religions ; and that, with this understanding of
the difference in our organizations, we could most earnestly reciprocate
the desire for a closer fellowship and co-operation. It was further sug
gested that intercourse by frequent correspondence, and a regular exchange
of publications, with, if it were possible, some arrangement for a larger
distribution of the publications of each organization in the country of the
other, might be the most practicable form of co-operation for the present.
RELATION OF THE ASSOCIATION TO SPECIFIC RELIGIONS.
The natural relationship which we of this Association bear to this native
reform in India leads us to say a word on the relation of the Association
to the specific religions in general ; and with this statement this Report
may fitly be brought to a close. There is considerable misconception in
the community, even among those who are not a little in sympathy with
the Association, as to its actual position on this point. Because the Free
Religious Association aims to do exact justice to àll the religions that
exist, or have ever existed; because it invites them, so far as is practica
ble, to come together upon one common platform, where each may state
its faith for itself, and each and all may be treated with fraternal respect
and courtesy ; because the Association emphasizes the underlying sym
pathies and agreements which, beneath all differences, are found to exist
among the religions ; because it asks whether the natural development of
these common elements will not gradually wear away the differences and
antagonisms, neutralize specific and exclusive claims, and bring mankind
�15
into universal spiritual unity and fellowship on the basis of freedom, —
because of all this, some persons seem to think that the Association has
seriously set itself to the task of striking out the eighteen centuries of
Christian history, and of resuscitating the ancient religions; or that, if
it has not attempted this, it has at least proposed to take the things that
are true and good in all the religions, and, mechanically combining them,
produce a new religion. It may be confidently said, we think, that the
Free Religious Association has more wisdom than either of these repre
sentations of its objects would imply.- It is reported of the quaint English
Platonist, Thomas Taylor, that he excited the alarm of his landlady and
lost his lodgings, because that good Christian housekeeper discovered that
he was making preparations to .sacrifice a bull to Jupiter in her back
parlor. But, with all the variety of faith and freedom of utterance
among the members of the Free Religious Association, we have not
heard that old Thomas Taylor has any disciple among us; and we believe
¿hat the orderly housekeepers of the established religions, of whatever
name, may dismiss all anxiety, in this particular. And as to the criticism
that we propose to select the truths of all the religions, and mechanically
make a new religion of the compound, it is sufficient to say in reply that,
if there is one thing which members and officers of this Association have
declared more emphatically than another, it is that religions are not made,
but grow,— that there is a natural historic order of religious develop
ment, a steady evolution of religious ideas from certain primitive germs,
and that the special religions are so many phases and stages of this
progress, brought about by the different conditions under which develop
ment has taken place. We refer to the old religions, endeavoring to do
exact historical justice to each, in order to set forth the proof of their
natural relationship to each other, and their descent from substantially
the same primitive germs. But this is not to affirm that the order of
development is to be reversed, nor that any of the religions, especially
the latest, can be spared from the historic line. But neither, on the other
hand, do we assume that the order of development has reached its ulti
mate, — that the religious sentiment has historically exhausted itself, and
Spoken the final word of absolute religion. On the contrary, we would
assert rather that the religious consciousness is as vitally organic to-day
as it has ever been; and that, whatever changes are coming in the relig
ious condition of the world, these changes are to be brought about by no
mechanical, eclectic combination of the virtues of past religions, but
are to be the product of regular organic growth and progress. The
Universal Religion, that spiritual unity and fellowship of which we in this
Association sometimes speak, is certainly to grow, just as much as the
special religions have grown. These religions, after having served some
�16
specific purposes in the history of the race, will, as it seems probable,
gradually be absorbed by a process of vital assimilation into the religion
of universal unity. And we have come to that epoch when there appear
very marked signs of progressive movement in several of the world’s
* great religions on converging lines towards a common centre of faith and
fellowship. It is this grand movement of the religious consciousness, to
which the Free Religious Association (in this feature of its work of which
we now speak) would strive in some way to give voice. The Association
does not expect to shape the movement: it does not profess to organize
it. It rather is shaped and organized by the movement. It simply
desires in some way to represent it, to give it utterance, to remove artificial
barriers, dogmatic and ecclesiastic, in order that it may have a freer
opportunity and a more natural progress.
Such, friends, is a statement of our principles so far as, this year, a
statement seems called for in our Report, and such the simple record of
your Committee’s.doings. The record seems brief; yet we are confident
the work has not been without good and lasting effect. Give your Com
mittee the means, and it can show larger performance. And now, as we
come together again in our Annual Meeting, let us renew our vows of
zeal, fidelity, and generosity to the cause which is here committed to our
hands.
Voted, That the Report be accepted, and its subject-matter be
open for remarks.
The President spoke of some of the practical difficulties in the
way of such an Association as this, so large and free in its scope ;
but explained how they were gradually being overcome. He also
alluded to some of the misinterpretations and criticisms of its
objects and principles. Some persons objected that it was not
called the “ Free Christian Association; ” but the term “ free
Christian ” would be as much out of place as “ free Mohammedan ”
or “ free Buddhist: ” religion was the larger word. And this
Association wished to emphasize the fact that there is common
ground under all the religions, and did not propose to set up the
special exclusive authority of any; therefore it did not, as an
organization, call itself after any of the specific religious names.
Neither was the Association, as some seemed to think, a Boston
' or New England clique. It was American and democratic. Its
ideas were adapted to the masses of the people. Its officers were
selected from different parts of the country ; and he suggested
�17
that it would be well to increase the number of Vice-Presidents
so as to give room for a larger number of ^representative names
from different localities.
Mrs. E. D. Cheney made some remarks on the enlarging,
liberalizing influence of one of the ideas of the Association, —
that of the “ Sympathy of Religions,” — and hoped- that the
means* might before long be provided for putting such ideas into
a popular form for the benefit of the class who had not the time
or culture for reading the original books. She spoke also of the
great importance of educating the so-called working-classes into
rational views of religion, as a preventive against violent revolu
tion. The late outrages in Paris, in one Of their features, showed
a tremendous reaction against the ecclesiastical system, and the
latent power of revolt that exists in the human mind against the
priestly authority. If this Association could open a free passage
for this rebellious feeling, so that it should find utterance in love
and joy and a rational reverence for truth, instead of violence and
bloodshed, it would accomplish one of its highest objects.
Rabbi Guinzburg, of the Boston Hebrew Synagogue, spoke
of the freedom, both actual and ideal, that belonged to Judaism,
maintaining that the Free Religious Association was the natural
result of principles which Judaism had taught. God had made
man in the image of Himself, — not the Jew only, but man, —
and so the Divine likeness was found in all humanity, the same
elements of reason and intelligence in all races and religions. In
like manner the moral law, as embodied in the Mosaic command
ments, was not for the Jew alone : it was a law for man; in other
words, conscience was another of the universal elements of human
consciousness. And in these common elements of intelligence
and conscience he found the grounds of human fellowship and
brotherhood ; hence he rejoiced in the Free Religious Association,
and could join it and work with it.
Mr. Oliver, of Boston, spoke of the great value of the name,
“ Free Religious Association,” and hoped it would never be
changed.
Mr. T. W. Higginson followed in a few remarks on the impor
tance of continuing the kind of work that had been undertaken
the past year in holding the Western Conventions, and urged
upon the Committee the advantages of having one convention,
3
�18
before the next Annual Meeting, in New York City. Mr. Hig
ginson’s remarks w6re indorsed by Mr. A. M. Powell, of New
York. Mr. Frothingham spoke of the difficulties of holding a
meeting in New York, but thought they might be successfully
overcome the present year.
Mrs. Cheney hoped that the suggestion made by. Mr.t Froth
ingham as to increasing the number of Vice-Presidents would be
adopted ; and, on her motion, it was voted that the Executive
’ Committee prepare such an amendment to the Constitution, to be
acted upon next year.
,
Voted, That the Chair appoint a Committee on the nomination
of officers for next year, and an Auditing Committee. Aaron M.
Powell, Mrs. Maria E. McKaye, and Abram W. Stevens were
appointed as a Nominating Committee; and Cornelius Welling
ton and Henry Damon, as Auditing Committee.
Adjourned to meet in Tremont Temple, Friday, 10 a.m.
�SESSIONS IN TREMONT TEMPLE.
MORNING SESSION.
The Convention assembled according to adjournment in Tre
mont Temple, Friday morning, at ten o’clock. The officers were
on hand at the hour ; bût, owing to the noise in the Hall from the
people continuing to come in, the meeting was not called to order
till 10.25. (At eleven o’clock the large hall was well filled, and
even larger audiences were present at the later sessions.)
The exercises were introduced by a brief preliminary address
from Mr. Frothingham, the President. Speaking first of the
gradual development of the ideas and work of the Association
and of the changes which had been made from year to year in the
programme of the Annual Meeting, exhibiting the large breadth
and variety of phase covered by the principles of the Association,
he proceeded substantially as follows : —
ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT.
The purposes and principles of the Free Religious Association by this
time are, or ought to be, well understood by all who care to under-,
stand them : that we hold to religion ; that we believe in the sympathy of
religions ; that we are cordial to all forms of religion and hostile to none ;
that we are opposed to all sectarianism in religion, to all ecclesiasticism,
to the very spirit and form of dogmatism ; that we aim at getting at the
secret of religions, at the kernel and heart of the great faiths that have
ruled the world ; that we wish to build now into the foundations of human
nature ; that we wish to reconcile religion with all the other great interests
of life, and to show that they are one ; that we wish to prove and to make
perfectly clear to all men the identity of religion and science, religion
and philosophy, religion and literature, religion and art, religion and
music,—nay, the perfect compatibility — may I not also say the identity?
— of religious life and principle with all the great stirring activities that
impel men to build themselves up into grander and nobler forms of civiliza
tion. To touch all these questions ; to touch them firmly ; to touch them
�20
reverently ; to speak of them positively ; and to use them all, not in any
degree or in any sense for the destruction of any thing that is good or of
any thing that is true, but for the culture and ripening of all that is true
and good, — this, it is perfectly understood by all who care to understand
us at all, is our deliberate aim and purpose and resolution.
And so to-day we adopt still another form of address. We are trying
to get closer and closer to our central fact. We are seeking to bring our
guns to bear more directly upon those great obstacles, which in our view
stand in the way of the reconciliation of religion with all these great
interests and supreme facts of life. Therefore this morning we propose
to throw down this problem, — a problem not of speculative interest
mainly or largely, but of public interest, of intellectual interest, of literary
interest, of practical interest, — the question of the relation between
Religion and Science, which are coming face to face with each other in
broad and long lines that cover acres and acres of territory, setting front
to front the thinkers and the feelers, the thinkers and the believers ; and we
wish to make those two great classes shake hands. In the afternoon we
throw down this problem, — that religion does not rest on the authority
of any single person. We throw down the problem of Jesus, for rev
erent and frank and generous discussion. In the evening we come face
to face with those two great influences of our time, as of all time, Dogma
tism and Superstition ; and we shall try to get our thought uttered on
that matter. The opening essays, you will understand and will allow,
are carefully prepared by gentlemen selected for the purpose. They are
meant to be thoughtful, intellectual, and as thorough discussions of the
questions as the time will admit. The discussions that follow are in
tended to develop the same subjects under more popular forms of appli
cation and address, with a view of interesting a larger number of people.
We must have an intellectual principle: we wish it to be understood
of all men that we stand upon ideas, that we believe in culture, that we
are ready to justify ourselves with thinkers, and have beneath us a
rational basis of thought and philosophy. But we do not wish to end
there. We are not simply a body of littérateurs ;■ we’are not simply a
company of clergymen in the pulpit or out of the pulpit ; we are not a
little clique of writers, of speculators, of closet philosophers ; we are not
a dainty, finespun set of men who amuse ourselves and hope to entertain
society with a few lucubrations about the tremendous realities of faith.
We mean business. The Free Religious Association means to address
itself to the common mind and to the common heart and the common will
and the common interest of the world. I believe, our constituency
generally believes, that our movement is intended to be, and will event
ually become, a great popular movement. We expect to get the sym
�21
pathies of the working classes of people. If it were not that we felt that
the times demand the emancipation of the working mind of this country
from all sorts of dogmatism, ecclesiasticism, formalism, ritualism, super
stition, we should hardly have undertaken a movement like this,.formid
able as it is in its burdens, formidable as it is in its toil. No : we wish to
put this thing home to the people; and we confidently expect, when our
methods are perfected and we can work according to our minds, such a
rally from the earnest mind and the resolute purpose of the -common
people of America as no existing sect commands. And we shall not be
set aside from this expectation: we shall say we are disappointed and
defeated if we do not in time hear a popular echo to our words. We
mean humanity : we are interested in the laboring man, the laboring
woman; and we are interested in developing every spark of intellect, of
will, of purpose, that exists in the body of our American communities,
so that there will begin to blaze before long a great burning fire of popu
lar enthusiasm for a faith that is free, rational, and humane.
I tell you, friends, there is a feeling — I know it living in New
York; people in the West, and here in the East, know the same thing
— there is a feeling of deep dissatisfaction with the present state of the
religious world in America. People are beginning to apply to their
religion the same liberty that builds up their politics and their literature.
There is a deep-seated discontent. It breaks out in words. It breaks
out in resolutions. It shows itself in the desertion of the churches. It
shows itself in the abandonment of the sacraments. It shows itself in
the neglect of the old sanctities. It shows itself, too, in distant, unintelli
gent murmurings and mutterings, that threaten something like a revolu
tion. And to anticipate this, to discharge the threatening clouds of their
most formidable shocks of lightning, we come forward to bridge over the
chasm between the old and the new; to offer a larger sympathy, a grander
hope, a more generous basis of faith, to the thinkers, doubters, disbelievers, sceptics, and deniers of our age. This is but a beginning.- We
are feeling our way gradually. I ask your allowance: judge us not by
what we have done in the past, judge us by what we purpose and hope
to do in the future. What we have done I could stand here and tell you
of, if I had the time and this were the place now. It has been a great deal
more than it seems, and the excess of result over the visible means em
ployed convinces me, and convinces us all, that we have struck a key
note, that we have awakened a response; that we are on a trail over
which thousands and thousands of men and women are moving, and that the
intelligent word alone is needed to crystallize and bring together in vigor
ous, organic fornl the chaotic elements that now seem distributed and
scattered over society.
*
�22
The President closed his remarks by introducing John Weiss
as the Essayist to open thé morning subject. Mr. Weiss pre
faced his reading by saying that he had written altogether too
much for the occasion, but would make selections from his manu
script, and ask that the address might not be judged as a whole
until printed entire in the Report.
ESSAY BY JOHN WEISS.
Religion and Science.
I am to speak upon the attitude of Science towards Religion. But
this subject opens into so many quarters of thought, some of which
presume a technical knowledge not possessed by me, that I can only
hope, by selecting my topics, to furnish some suggestions towards any dis
cussion that may follow. A thorough treatment of this interesting subject,
which is beginning to attract the attention of all minds that are more or
less competent to deal with it, involves more time and more respect for
details, more personal and experimental observation, than- any morning
platform can furnish. I lately heard of a saying of Professor Agassiz,
that the amateur reader of scientific discoveries never actually possessed
the facts that are described : they belong only to the observer, who
felt them developing and dawning into his knowledge with a rapture of
possession that seems to share the process of creation. To that just
remark I add my conviction that the practised observer does not always
thoroughly apprehend and calculate the drift of the facts which he pro
cures. Still, a mere reader of science, however receptive his intellect
may be, or inclined to scientific methods, is not in a position to speak
with authority upon various points which emerge from the controversy
that now prevails between the two parties of Natural Evolution of Forces
and Natural Development of Divine Ideas ; for thus I propose to state
the matter in hand.
One party may be said to derive all the physical and mental phenomena
of the world from germs of matter that collect forces, combine to build
structures and increase their complexity, establish each different order of
creatures by their own instinctive impulse, and climb at length through
the animal kingdom into the human brain, where they deposit thought,
expression, and emotion. At no point of this process of immense duration
need there be a divine co-operation, because the process is supposed to
have been originally delegated to a great ocean of germs : they went into
action furnished for every possible contingency, gifted in advance 'with
the whole sequence from the amoeba, or the merest speck of germinal
matter, to a Shakspearian moment of Hamlet, or a Christian moment of
�23
the Golden Rule. Consequently, ideas are only the impacts of accumulating sensations upon developing brains; an intellectual method is only
the coherence of natural phenomena, and the moral sense is nothing but a
carefully hoarded human experience of actions that are best to be repeated
, for the comfort of the whole. The imagination itself is but the success
of the most sensitive brains in bringing the totality of their ideas into a
balanced harmony that corresponds to the Nature that furnished them.
The poet’s eye glancing from earth to heaven is only the earth and sky
condensing themselves into the analogies of all their facts, in native inter
play and combination, wearing the terrestrial hues of midnight, morn,
and eve. The epithet divine, applied to a possible Creator, can bear no
other meaning than unknown; and the word spiritual is equivalent to
cerebral. Spirit is the germinal matter arranged at length, after a deal
of trouble, into chains of nerve-cells that conspire to deposit all they have
picked up on their long journey from chaos to man. So that when their
living matter becomes dead matter, their deposit drops through into non
entity ; and the word Immortality remains only to denote facts of terrestrial
duration, such as the life of nations and the fame of men with the heaviest
and finest brains. If a brain-cell discontinues its function, existence can
not continue.
The other party, which inclines to a theory that creation is a development
of divine ideas, is very distinctly divided into those who believe that this
development took a gradual method and used natural forces that are every
where upon the spot, and those who prefer to claim a supernatural incom
ing of fresh ideas at the beginnings of genera and epochs. The former
believe that the Divine Mind accompanies the whole development, and
secures its gradualism; or, that the universe is a single, unbroken expres
sion of an ever-present Unity. The latter believe that the expression
can be enhanced, broken in upon by special acts that do not flow from
previous acts, but are only involved in the ideas which the previous acts
contained; so that there is a sequence of idea, but not of actual creative
evolution out of one form into another. The former think that they find
in the marks of slow gradation from simple to complex forms, both of
physical and mental life, the proof that a Creator elaborates all forms out
of their predecessors, by using immense duration of time, but never for a
moment deserting any one of them, as if it were competent to do it alone;
so that the difference of species, men, and historical epochs, is only one of
accumulation of ideas, and not of their interpolation. The latter think
that the missing links of the geological record, the marked peculiarities
of races and periods, the transcendent traits of leading men, are proofs
that the Creator does not work by natural evolution, but by deliberate
insertion of fresh ideas to start fresh creatures. One party recognizes
the supernatural in the whole of Nature, because the whole embodies a
*
�24
divine ideal. The other party is not reluctant to affirm the same, but
thinks it essential to the existence of Nature to import special efforts of
the ideal, which are equivalent to special creations : so that the naturalist
gets on with nothing but unity and gradàtion ; the supernaturalist cannot
take a step without plurality and interference.
What are the opinions entertained by Naturalism upon the origin of
ideas, the moral sense, the spiritual nature ?
Naturalism itself here splits. One side borrows the method of natural
evolution of forces so far as to derive all the contents of the mind from the
experiences of mankind as they accumulated and systematized themselves
in brains ; and when further questions are put as to whether there be an
independent origin for a soul, and a permanent continuance for it, —
whether there be an original moral sense that appropriates social experi
ences, and gives a stamp of its own latent method to them,— the answers
are deferred, because it is alleged that Science has not yet put enough
facts into the case to support a judicial decision.
But another camp is forming upon the field of Naturalism. Its follow
ers incline to believe that all human and social experience started from a
latent finite mind, distinct from the structure that surrounded it ; and that
the movement of evolution was twofold, one side of it being structural
and the other mental, both strictly parallel, moving simultaneously in
consequence of a divine impulse that resides at the same moment in the
physical’and mental nature, — an impulse that accumulated into a latent
finite mind as soon as a structure appropriate to express it accumulated ;
that the history of mankind has been a mutual interplay of improving
circumstances and developing intelligence, but that the first step was
taken by the latent mind, just as the first step in creating any thing must
have been taken by a divine mind ; and that the last steps of perfected
intelligence reproduce the original method and purposes of a Creator who
imparted to man this tendency to reproduce them. In this latent tendency
all mental phenomena lay packed, or nebulous, if you please ; or it was
germinal mentality, if you prefer the term ; or inchoate soul-substance.
The term is of little consequence, provided we notice the possibility of
something tb begin human life with beside the structure that was elabo
rated out of previous creatures.
We know that the human brain repeats, during the period of its fœtal
existence, some of the forms of the vertebrata that preceded it. We also
know that when any organ of man’s body is diseased, a degeneration takes
place that repeats the state of the same organ in the lower animals. The
secretion is no longer normal, but recurs to a less perfect kind. So we
4 notice that in degeneration of the brain some idiotic conditions occur that
repeat with great exactness the habits and temper of monkeys and other
animals. The descending scale of degeneration, no less than the ascend
�25
ing effort of development, touches at animal stages, and incorporates
them in the human structure. It would require a uniformity of degen
erating conditions sustained through an immense duration of time to
degrade a human structure into any actual animal form, if, indeed, such a
retrogradation be not forbidden by the mental and moral superiority which
any human structure must have attained. Still, the physical and mental
diseases of mankind are significant allusions : they mimic, as it were, some
stages of structural development.
When Dr. Howe visited the isolated cottages for the insane at Gheel
in Belgium, he noticed that the noisy .ones (les crieurs, the howlers) could
be heard in the dusk crying like animals, but-clearly human animals;
and he says, “ Is it only fancy, or were men once mere animals, shouting
and crying aloud to each other; and is this habit of shattered maniacs
another proof that all organized beings tend to revert to the original type,
like that reversion of neglected fruit tpwards the wild crab ? ”
The popular language notices this tendency to deterioration in the
tricks of over-sensual men: we^say a man is a hog, a goat, a monkey.
Some cunning facial traits remind us irresistibly of the fox, others of the
rat. These resemblances were the unconscious elements in the Egyptian
theory of metempsychosis, or the retrogression of evil men into the
animals whose special tricks were like their own.
We cannot help seeing that Nature slowly felt her way towards us,
built her clay models, reframed her secret thought, committed it to brains
of increasing complexity, till man closed the composing period, and began
to blab of his origin.
But how did he begin to do that ? Was his social life a physical result
of the sympathies of gregarious animals, who defend and feed each other,
protect and rear their young, dig burrows, spread lairs, and weave a nest ?
That, it is replied, was only the structural and physical side of something
that had been preparing to step farther. It could not have furnished the
germinal conditions of speech, thought, and conscience. Was it be
cause the fox was cunning, that man learned to circumvent his enemies;
because the elephant was sagacious, that he undertook to ponder; because
the monkey was curious, that he began to pry into cause and effect;
because the bee built her compact cell, that he grew geometrical ? The
answer made is, that these structural felicities lay on the road between a
Creator who geometrized, and a creature who learned to see that it was
so, and called it Geometry. At the end of that road is a mind that under
takes to interpret whence the road started, and how it was laid out. If
you prefer to derive that latent mind from these previous states of animal
intelligence, it does not damage the presumption in favor of independent
mind. Estimate the animals to be as sagacious as you please, until they
4
�26
barely escape stepping over into the domain which our reflective words
have appropriated, — such as memory, perception, adaptation, causality,
also a rudiment of conscience. Even be surprised»by traces of selfdevotion, like that in the “ heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded
enemy in order to save the life of his keeper; or in the old baboon, who,
descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young com
rade from a crowd of astonished dogs.” Say, if you will, as Rama
said in the Ramayana, when a vulture died in defending his mistress: “ Of
a certainty there are amongst the animals many good and generous
beings, and even many heroes. For my part, I do not doubt that this
compassionate bird, who gave his life for my sake, will be admitted into
Paradise.” Believe, if you are a dog-fancier, that in “ that equal sky ”
your faithful dog will bear you company. It would infringe upon my
sense of personality no more than to have him trotting by my side in this
world. Here he is altogether unconscious how my moral sense sets store
by and idealizes his instinctive service, and how I flatter him with imputa
tions of my own self. He licks the hand^that extends to him a mood of
the Creator’s appreciation of fidelity.
But grant that the Creator derived the latent human mind by gradual- ‘
ism out of all kinds of animal anticipations. The mind thus derived
reaches to a distinction from physical structure, and to a subordination^
it to ideal purposes, at that point of development where the man can say,
1 am; that phrase is an echo against the walls of creation of the first
creative fiat of Him who is I Am. When man finds language to express
his sense of personal consciousness, God overhears the secret of his own
condition told into all the ears he has created by all the tongues of his
own spiritual essence. The mouse cannot squeak it, nor the elephant
trumpet it; the sparrow cannot cheep and twitter it, nor can the ape
chatter his anticipation that hqjf is 'about to be liberated into speech and
personal identity. All the herds of the animals furnish the physical
structure of man with the devices of their strength and instinct, but they
have no personal freedom to contribute. A school of whales will yield
so many barrels of oil to feed the midnight lamps of thinkers who chase
the absent sun with surmises concerning a light that never sets.
Certainly it must be true that the physical and chemical forces which
are involved in acts of creation cannot suggest to any parts of creation
the previous laws of the Creator. We say thele forces reach the felicity
of making a man: if this be so, they have made something that is differ
ent from their own nature. Man himself betrays this difference as soon
as he begins to establish science upon universal laws: it is a proof that
he is not only a part of creation, in the natural order, but also the member
of a spiritual order, by virtue of which he attains slowly to conceptions
*
�27
*
of the laws that made him, including the chemical functions of his
various organs. Which of all our secretions could explain themselves ?
After they have discharged all their duty of nutriment and defecation,
. they have reached the end of their tether. Could the pancreatic juice,
by going into partnership with the liver, kidneys, and stomach, succeed in
explaining the manner of its secretion, and how it pours into the duode
num? Can the blood, which is the expression to which these lower
functions reach, lift to the brain a report of the way it grew to be red,
Mid of the use of the white corpuscles ? Do the countless nerve-cells
that weave their telegraphic circuits through the brain — to which every
organ sends its message, and receives thence its reply — convert these sen
sations into something that is not nerve-cell, that is not gray or fibrous
matter; do they lose their identity and become deduction, wit, imagina
tion, and synthetic thought ? When you can prove that germinal matter
made itself, you will be in a condition to show that matter interprets itself.
Dor that is what man does: he interprets not only the matter of his own
private structure, but of all organic and inorganic forms. Does matter
arm the eyes it makes with the telescope and microscope to overcome its
own extension and density ?' What is it that calculates the weights of
the planets, and records the relative ratios of their movements, and an
nounces new planets before they have been seen? Something kindred
with the intellect that preconceived the existence of that universe of
germs which becomes function, substance, form, and force. “ When we
See daily how all created things hasten to fall in with the logic of the
best thinkers, and to crystallize along the lines which they draw, we know
that such lines are drawn parallel with divine ideas, and that science is
made in the image of a Creator.”
This position of theistic Naturalism entitles it not to be afraid of all
the scientific facts that can be produced. «If Mr. Darwin could prove to
morrow that we have descended from an anthropoid ape that tenanted the
boundless waste of forest branches, we should as cheerfully accept our
structure created out of dust in that form as in any other. There is
dignity in dust that reaches any form, because it eventually betrays a
farming power, and ceases to be dust by sharing it. I am willing to
have it shown that I travel with a whole menagerie in my cerebellum: *
your act of showing it to me shows that neither you nor I are members
0>f that menagerie. We are its feeders, trainers, and interpreters. We
act God’s part towards it, as he does upon the scale of zones and conti4 nents. In us, in fact, he improves upon his natural action by bringing
all his dumb creatures under one roof, where he enjoys the benefit of
knowing that his motive in creating them is understood and delighted in;
so that though saurians are out of date, and he no longer has the joy of
�28
making the mammoth and aurochs, we rehearse the ancient raptures for
him, and preserve them in our structures.
“ Thus He dwells in all,
From life’s minute beginnings, up at last
To man, — the consummation of this scheme
Of being, the completion of this sphere
Of life; whose attributes had here and there
Been scattered o’er the visible world before,
Asking to be combiiied — dim fragments meant
To be united in some wondrous whole —
Imperfect qualities throughout creation,
Suggesting some one creature yet to make —
Some point where all those scattered rays should meet
Convergent in the faculties of man.”
“ Man, once descried, imprints for ever
His presence on all lifeless things : the winds
Are henceforth voices, in a wail or shout,
A querulous mutter, or a quick, gay laugh —
Never a senseless gust now man is born.”
“ So in man’s self arise
August anticipations, symbols, types
Of a dim splendor ever on before,
In that eternal circle run by life.”
I submit to you the doubt whether germinal matter, even if it be called
Protoplasm, and then re-baptized as the individual, Robert Browning,
could have composed those lines which contain prevision of the whole drift
of modern science. Could nerve-cells, nourished by roast meat, revel in
those “ august anticipations ” of a state and attainment that depend upon
a continuance of our life ?
We need be afraid of nothing in- heaven or earth, whether dreamt of
or not in our philosophy. It is a wonder to me that 'scholars and clergy
men are so skittish about scientific facts. I delight, for instance, in the
modern argument which reproduces and systematizes the ancient fireworship of the Persian, by showing that the sun’s atmosphere contains
* all the stuffs of the solar system, and is its God whose vibrating emanations
wake all things to a morning of living. The more possibilities you
attribute to the sun, the more exhaustive you allege its creative power to
be, to the extent, if you please, of sending the fine ether which courses
through the brain-cells, the more correspondent to the solar nature you
show that all life-action may be, — the more you help me to my belief in a
latent mind as the first term of human existence. You have made that
'fluent and wallowing sun a solid stepping-stone in the great river of
�29
phenomena, and it takes me across dry-shod, with not the smell of its
fire upon my garments, — takes me directly to a Cause for something so
glorious, for such a mobile and flaming minister to all things. On the
way toward that Cause, if I choose, I can step to suns more distant, each
of which is the life-centre of its system and the distributor of germs;
but though this pathway may stretch to the crack of doom expected by
the theologian, I shall find at the end of it something that sands the floor
of heaven thick with suns. Something; not another sun, but suns’ Father.
I started with an idea of Cause, and now I find the reason why I did,
because nothing is uncaused. I get justification for using the term; for
it appears to be the language used at length by One who can no longer be
content that his heavens should have no sound, and that their voice
should not be heard. Latent mind first betrayed its presence on the earth
by beginning to grope from effects to causes, to account for things. Thus
the mind, like a weak party of soldiers separated from its base by for
midable streams, has slowly pontooned its way back to the main Cause by
successive discoveries of causes. It is recognized afar off, it is welcomed,
and rushes with the hunger of long absence into the arms of comradeship.
It does not disturb me to be told that the mind has no innate ideas;
that, in fact, the entity called mind is a result of the impressions which
the senses gather from Nature, a body of sifted perceptions ; that all our
emotions started in the vague sympathy that the first men had for each
other when they found themselves in company; that a sense of justice is
not native to the mind, but only a consequence of the efforts of men to
get along comfortably in crowds, with the least amount of jostling; that
the feeling of chastity has no spiritual derivation, but was slowly formed
in remote ages by observation of the pernicious effects of promiscuous
living; that, in short, all the mental states which we call intuitions should
be called digestions from experience. For, supposing this theory to be
the one that will eventually account for all mental phenomena, why need
one care how he grew into a being who throbs with the instantaneous
purpose of salutary ideas, with the devotion of his thought and conscience
to the service of mankind, with a ravishing sense of harmony, and pro
portion that breaks into his symphony and song ? When a man reaches
the point of being all alive, thrilling to his finger-tips with all the nerves
a world can contribute, shall he distress himself because, upon examining
his genealogy, he discovers no aristocrat, but a plebeian, for his ancestor ?
If, in fact, he should discover something that had fallen to the convention
ality of being an aristocrat, it would, as the world goes, breed a’suspicion
that something previous had maintained the dignity of being a plebeian.
Manhood ennobles all ancestors, and they enjoy princely revenues in its
vitality. Must I make myself miserable because I am told that for nine
4
�30
months of my existence I was successively a fish, a frog, a bird, a rabbit,
a monkey, and that my infancy presented strong Mongolian characteristics ?
This, then, was the path to the human mind, that outswims all fishes in a
sea where no fish can live, that leaps with wit and analogy more agile
than frogs or kangaroos, that travels by aerial routes to spaces where no
bird’s wing could winnow. So be it, if it be so. I do not care for the path
when I come in sight of the mansion of love and beauty that has been
prepared for me. Its windows are all aglow with “ an awful rose of
dawn.” What delicacy of sentiment dr imagination can be desecrated
because barbarian ancestors felt like brutes or fancied like lunatics ? Can
the find’s majestic conception of a divine plan of orderly and intelligent
development be unsphered and brutalized because the first men felt the
cravings of causality more faintly than the pangs of hunger? Causality
has reached its coronation-day: its garment of a universe is powdered
with galaxies and nebulae, suns glitter on its brow, the earth is its footstool,
its sceptre God’s right hand. You cannot mortify or attaint this king by
reminding it of days spent in hovels and squalor, hiding from the treason
of circumstances, sheltered and fed precariously by savages. Would you
unseat him ? Then annihilate a universe.
• This latent tendency to discover cause rescues the first beginnings of
the human soul from any materialism that would deny its independent
existence. It provides the human structure with a tenant, who improves
it as his circumstances become more flattering, until both together frame
one complete convenience. We do not require a theory of innate ideas
to establish this soul upon earth and set it going. All we require is
the theory of innate tendency, of latent directions, of inchoate ideas, that
pervade this germinal soul-substance just as the divine ideas pervaded
primitive matter. I conceive that our mental method and our moral sense
were possibilities of soul-germs, but that experience stimulated them into
improving action and expression, till at length our idea of sequence and
origin, and our sense of right and wrong, have become normal conditions
of intelligence. Why not say, then, that they are at last intuitive ? But
it is chiefly important to accept them as essential elements of a human
person, without regard to the method of their derivation. For derivation
is not in itself fatal to the independence of the thing derived. It is not
among genera and species : why should it be among personal ideas ?
People do not like to have their conscience derived from gradual discov
eries of acts that turned out to be the most useful or the most sympathetic,
nor to feel that they have no inner guide but this inherited succession of
selfish experiences. And, indeed, the theory does not account for all the
facts. It is unable to give any satisfactory explanation of the moral con
dition of such men as Woolman and John Brown; of any brakeman or
*
�engineer who coolly puts himself to death to save a train ; of Arnold of
Winkelried who “ gathered in his breast a sheaf of Austrian spears,”
and felt Swiss liberty trample over him and through the gap.
This theory, that the moral sense was slowly deposited by innumerable
successions of selfish experiences, could make nothing of the story lately
told of the way a little girl was rescued, who had “ wandered on to the
track of the Delaware Railroad as a freight train of nineteen cars was
approaching. As it turned the sharp top of the grade, opposite St. Geor
ges, the engineer saw the child for the first time, blew ‘ Down brakes,’
and reversed the engine. But it was too late to slacken its speed in time;
and the poor baby got up, and, laughing, ran to meet it. 11 told the con
ductor,’ says the engineer, ‘ if he could jump off the engine, and, running
ahead, pick the child up before the engine reached her, he might save her
life, though it would risk his own ; which he did. The engine was within
one foot of the child when he secured it, and they were both saved. I
would not run the same risk of saving a child again by way of experiment
for all Newcastle County, for nine out of ten might not escape. He took
the child to the lane, and she walked to the house, and a little girl was
coming after it when we left.’ The honest engineer, having finished his
day’s run, sits down the next morning and writes this homely letter to the
father of the child, ‘ in order that it may be more carefully watched in
future,’ and thanking God ‘ that himself and the baby’s mother slept tran
quilly^ last night, and were spared the life-long pangs of remorse.’ It
does not occur to him to even mention the conductor’s name, who, he
seems to think, did no uncommon thing in risking his own life, unseen
and unnoticed on the solitary road, for a child whom he would never prob
ably see again.”
The feeling of utility would confine men strictly within the limits of
the average utility of any age. Each generation would come to a mutual
understanding of the things that would be safe to perform. The instinct
of self-preservation would be a continual check to the heroism that dies
framing its indictment against tyrannies and wrongs. The great men who
fling themselves against the scorn and menace of their age could never be
born out of general considerations of utility or sympathy; for each man
would say that a wrong, though not salutary to its victim, would not be
salutary to one who should try to redress it. Sympathy that was spawned
by the physical circumstances of remote ages could never reach the temper
of consideration for the few against the custom of the many. You could
no more extract heroism from such a beginning of the moral sense than
sunbeams from cucumbers.' We owe a debt to the scientific man who can
show how many moral customs result from local and ethnic experiences,
and how the conscience is everywhere capable of inheritance and education.
�32
He cannot bring us too many facts of this description, because we have
one fact too much for him; namely, a latent tendency of conscience to
repudiate inheritance and every experience of utility, to fly in its face
with a forecast of a transcendental utility that supplies the world with its
redeemers, and continually drags it out of the snug and accurate adjust
ment of selfishness to which it arrives. The first act of such devoted
self-surrender might have been imitated, no doubt; and a few men in every
age, having learned by this means that a higher utility resulted from doing
an apparently useless thing, might be developed by a mixture of reason
and sympathy into resisting their fellows. But how are you going to
account for the first act ? How for a sentiment of violated justice, if justice
be only the precipitate of average utility? How for a tender love for
remote and invisible suffering, for wrongs that are a nuisance at too great
a distance to be felt or observed, if sympathy is nothing but an under
standing among people who are forced to live together ? I should as soon
pretend that my nostrils were afflicted by a bad smell that was transpiring
in Siam.
This reminds me to ask how any particular odor was first discovered to
be nauseous. If the reply be offered, that olfactory discrimination must
have resulted from experiences of the effect of odors, gradually acquired,
and slowly modifying the organ, I say that the process must have begun in a
capacity to perceive, no matter how imperfectly, that a scent is disagree
able. What is that previous, capacity ? It must have been something
that was not created by the scent. It is no objection to this that people
differ in sensibility for odors, so that a flower may be disagreeable to one
and pleasant to another. If odors create the organ that corresponds
to and discriminates them, they ought to appear the same to everybody.
But there is a latent perception that varies among individuals, and decides
their favorite perfumes ; and it is curious to notice how they correspond
to mental characters and seem to have a faint analogy with the condi
tion of the-moral sense. Discrimination in smelling could not have been
originated by the things that were smelt, any more than a man’s trail or
blood-drip must have preceded and created the blood-hound’s tracking. »
The moral sense to which we have attained by stages must have started
from an original tendency to become sensitive to moral acts. We cannot
say that the results have established the tendency, any more than we can
say that marks of design have originated a designer; that an eye, for
instance, developed light, or that light created a light-maker.
The phrases, I ought, 1 ought not, are not merely functional, as when
a blood-hound tracks, a pointer points, a watch-dog listens through the
house. We detect even in the animals a sense of duty in carrying out
their instincts, and a deferring to man, as if to a source of the instincts,
�33
or at least to a power that holds them responsible for good behavior. So
W® instinctively refer our moral attitude to a source of moral law.
It is possible we have reached a moral sense from the anticipatory
types of conscience in some animals, by drifting along with them through
Mr. Spencer’s experiences of utility and Mr. Darwin’s social instincts.
But a latent mental tendency must have fallen in with that structural
drift at some point, else man would never agonize to say, 1 ought, 1 ought
not. Is it any the less divine because it has consorted with animals and
savages, and found their company no hinderance to this elaborating of a
sense of right and wrong? It is all the more divine, because it betrays
conformity with the great order of development, at the same time that it
has been forereaching through it to perfect moral actions.
What was the nature of John Woolman’s secret satisfaction when he
insisted upon non-compliance with the habits and allowances of his time ?
If conscience be the result of discovering what turns out badly for a per
son who is living on the scale of other persons, why should he, a tailor,
have discouraged the making and wearing of fine clothes; have refused to
touch, to his own serious privatior^ one of the products of slave-labor;
have protested, to the loss of sympathy and gain of contempt, against
ownership in men? Was he an abnormal variety, a deteriorated speci
men, a man whom advantage hurt ? Where do Mr. Darwin’s social
instincts come in? Woolman withstood all these for distant and abstract
incentives, and originated, without social and intellectual material, a fresh
epoch of moral feeling. The latent tendency attained to liberation from
all its previous experiences.
One of the bases of conscience is said to be the intellectual capacity to
recall past impressions, to compare them with present temptations, and to
decide upon the most advantageous action. Possibly; but it cannot be a
sine qua non, as we see in the cases of those uncultivated souls who have
a new scruple or a sudden heroism. And some of the best intelligences
are dull and uncertain in the moral sense. Is it because they are at the
same time weak in the social instincts ? Some very acute and long
headed pirates of society are fond family-men, love to gather children
around their knees, have sympathetic impulses; and, when they are not
on a plundering excursion among widows and orphans, as directors of
mills and railroads, would be selected to found a society of correct men
in consequence of immaculate dicky and domesticity.
The lower senses, by repeated experiment and observation, acquire an
unconscious, automatic movement. When the higher senses have passed
out of their experimental stages, they acquire a spontaneous movement.
In the region of intellectual and moral ideas this becomes intuitive; that
is, they attain to a power of looking into themselves, of comparing and
5
�34
deducing, and also of anticipating other ideas, or at least evolutions from
existing ideas, which sometimes lead to the forefeeling of a law of Nature
in advance of its confirmation by experiment, — as when Lucretius antici
pated moderns vyith a theory of evolution, of the magnet, and of the
constitution of the sun; and Swedenborg divined fresh planets before
Leverrier was furnished with the calculus which might have led him
experimentally to the fact; or when Kepler saw dimly in his mental
firmament the law to which at length the sky responded. This was
latent correspondence with the law: it was stimulated by all his scientific
knowledge; but when it stepped upon planetary ratios into a new secret
of creation, it announced its independence of experience, and betrayed
a similarity in essence with the Creator.
Let us now consider if this latent mentality, which reaches thus to
independent action, has any chance of surviving the dissolution of the
cerebral structure by means of some force, called Vitality, distinct in kind
from all the physical and chemical forces that build our frame. Natural
ism denies a special vitality, because it is so engrossed with showing how
functions develop by the instrumentality of human forces: it affirms that
the whole drift of experimental analogy sets against the conception of
another force, unless it be one that shall differ only in degree, and not in
kind, not in essential independence, not in permanent continuance, from
the rest. Observation has lifted these forces to the level of so many
functions, till at length it has detected them conspiring in the action of
the brain, that scientific men are cautious about predicating the existence
of a finer force that comes to use the deposits of the brain-cells, or that
is exhaled from them into an independent essence. This modesty is not
mistimed, for its singleness of purpose supplies marvellous facts and
hints about the human organization which no religion can afford to do
without. It is childish to be afraid of their tendency, and weak to
declare that they yet decide the question.
What is Vitality ? I notice, in the first place, that our common contrast
of animate and inanimate — which means, when we make it, that we
believe that the former could not have been developed from the latter —
is really only a contrast derived from a general optical impression. We
think we see that one object is alive and that another is not, and our
sight applies the tests which experience has preconceived as being cor
respondent to life and to death. But it does not follow that the origins
of life — which are removed from us by immense duration, and thus far,
if they are still going on, by inadequate means of observation — must he
distinct acts of germs that exist in a plane apart from the inanimate.
They may have been, and may still be, evolutions through forces out of
inanimate matter. Inanimate may be only latent animate.
�35
But I think we ought to discard this old-fashioned contrast, and substi
tute the terms organic and inorganic; for a bit of wood or stone will
. show, beneath the most powerful microscope, a gathering and shifting of
granules, a confused intermingling, that is enough to betray motion at
least, and to put us on the track of the suggestion that a primitive ocean
of germs was set on its creative way by motion. Nothing then can be
called inanimate that contains the first quality or essential towards vitality.
But it may be called inorganic if its structure admits of passing to no
Other function. An organism is something that announces vital force or
function; that gathers the universal cells, granules, cytods—or whatever
you may please to call protoplastic stuff — into some definite gesture,
however faint, and begins to use the inorganic to nourish and sustain its
organs.
Mr. Beale, an eminent advocate for a special and indestructible vitality
in man, says: “ If a particle of living matter, not more than joo^o' th
of an inch in diameter, were made in the laboratory out of non-living
matter, — if it lived and moved, and grew and multiplied, — I confess my
belief in the spiritual nature of my faculties would be severely shaken.”
Why should it be shaken any more than if it should turn out to be true
that living matter originated the spiritual nature ? It is certain that living
matter is instrumental in expressing our faculties, whatever their origin
may have been. Then of what consequence is it whence the living matter
is derived? We are not appalled at the possibility that organic matter may
be made out of non-living—or, more properly, inorganic — matter. We
are nerved for such a result, whether it occur in the laboratory or in Nature,
by the conviction that the spiritual functions are no more imperilled by
using matter originated in any way, than the Creator hazarded his existence
by originating matter in some way to be used by himself and by us. His
vitality resides in the whole of matter; so that even if the inorganic be
convertible into the organic, or the organic into the inorganic, he has to
no extent fallen dead. Then there can be no danger to our mind that
may result from either process, or that may receive its material instru
ment from either.
There is nothing really inanimate in all creation ; for the Infinite Life
has gone into representation by each of its epochs, from the primordial
germinal matter through all its evolutions: no form or result of it can
fee dead. There is no such thing as death, but an incessant shifting into
and out of all forms. The stone arrests for the present the shifting, but
it must have a certain kind of life in itself in order to do that, — some
thing that tends to be not long or constantly arrested, that is all the
time vaguely tumultuous with its imprisoned particles. If any thing
could be really dead, God would, to that thing’s extent, cease to be alive.
*
�36
•
I have sometimes indulged the speculation that the molecular activity
observable in inorganic substances is a degeneration of the germinal
activity which is observable in the amoeba and other vital stuff. That is,
I suppose that the germinal has preceded the molecular activity ; and that
all stones, minerals and gems, were held positively vital in the original
nebulosity, in that ocean of creative germs, which was not inorganic, though
it was undetermined. What we call dead matter is the excrement of a
germinal universe; but it may still go into fertilizing, and is doing it,
perhaps, all the time. It once shared the life of all germs, though it now
seems to have become inert and solid merely to build continents for the
support of vital forms. The word inert cannot represent an absolute fact
of death, but only a relative condition of vitality.
But what is vitality in a human structure? It may be only (a part of
the universal vitality, raised to very high conditions, or it may be a spe
cial mode of it; but in either case I do not see why it does not share the
universal advantage of being indestructible. “Yes,” says the scientific
man ; “ but it also must share the universal tendency of forces to shift into
force again when the structure that contains them is destroyed. The
man’s vitality may still exist, but only in some mode of impersonal force,
as motion shifts into heat. When all the known forces are discovered
constantly at this interplay, we cannot assume that another force yet
undiscovered will be differently endowed.” What have we got to say to
that ?
The only attempt which I have noticed, of purely scientific pretension,
at an answer is contained in a paper on Vitality, read by the Rev. H. H.
Higgins, M. A., before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liver
pool. He says : “ The most delicate tests for indicating minute changes in
electrical, thermal, and other conditions, have been applied at the moment
of death, and have shown no sign. Now it is certain of the forces of heat
light, motion, &c., that they are absolutely indestructible: they may be
converted one into the other, but they cannot cease to exist. If the
vital principle was analogous to these agencies, it might escape in any one
of them ; but of this no well-ascertained trace has been observed in any
investigation of the phenomena of death.”
But this statement proves too much. If the tests applied at the moment
of death discover no force at all in the act of escaping, it only shows that
no force at all is discoverable under the conditions of a dying moment.
But we know that thermal and electrical conditions exist in the functions
of a living body: they ought, then, to be intercepted as they pass away.
Where, for instance, does the thermal condition go, and why should it
not be seen in going? For it certainly existed just before the moment
of dying, and for some time after. This, then, is not a decisive test of the
undetectable presence of a special vitality.
�This is the question. If there be specific vitality, does it escape from
death with the mental, contents of the person whose body died, to prolong
his identity, or is it only another physical force, though a specific one,
with character distinct from heat, light, &c., but still a force that joins
after death the unconscious equilibrium out of which it first allied itself
to a human organization ?
To call vitality specific, and to claim that it is prior to organization,
does not answer the above question.
All the steps of modern investigation seem to disprove the theory of
personal continuance. Functions of the body which were long supposed
to depend upon a specific vitality are now referred to known chemical
forces, and are repeated in the laboratory. The theory is pushed from
post to post, till it seems to have only a base of moral probability to fall
back upon.
Far from undervaluing that,.— finding, on the contrary, in the manifesta
tions of personal character a hint of immortality that is superior to, at
least, the resurrection of any dead body, — I still claim that Science is
not so neutral on this question as it thinks to be. I am quite content to
wait for some special investigation of the point, while the co-ordination of
all phenomena by mental laws that explain creative acts, and refer us back
to a pre-existing mind, show me, with the emphasis of a universe, that the
minds which can interpret and spiritually reconstruct the plan of creation
must share the nature of the Creator. It is his nature to have pre
existed distinct from his germinal material. It must be the nature of
corresponding mind to be distinct from its germinal material, to have been
allied to human structures in a state of latent mentality.
I own I find it difficult to conceive how this latent mind was gradually
developed out of the structures that passed through animal into human
conditions. It seems at first as if the mental quality must have been
homogeneous through all its gradations. In what manner could it have
begun to be different in kind from itself as it was in its previous animal
expressions ? At first, in trying to meet that question, we appear to be
driven to put up with one of two alternatives: either that the animals
have shared independent vitality, if we have; or that we started from
germinal soul-monads that were outside of, and previous to, physical
structure, but were in some way attracted to all the points of human
development.
But I suggest whether there can be any germinal soul-substance except
the mysterious force which we call Vitality wherever we see it in the human
state. It went into creation allied with all the germs which have subse
quently taken form. It carried everywhere a latent sensibility for the
creative law out of which it came. It swept along with a dim drift of
�38
the Personality that first conceived it and then put it on the way to self
expression. It mounted thus by the ascending scale of animals, and its
improvements in structure were preparations to reach and repeat Per
sonality, to report the original sense of the Creator that he was independent
of structure. At length it became detached from the walls of the womb
of creation, held only for nourishment by the cord of structure, till it
could have a birth into individualism. Then the interplay of mind and
organism began, with an inherited advantage in favor of Vitality. Now
Vitality, thus developed and crystallized into personality, tends constantly
back towards its origin. The centrifugal movement through all the animals
is rectified by the centripetal movement in man. The whole series of
effects recurs to an effecting Cause.
At any rate, it is quite as difficult to conceive that there were pre
existent soul-germs which could be attracted from without to human
embryos, to become their vital and characteristic forces, as it is to frame a
clear statement of the way in which independent minds became developed
out of all the previous animal and semi-human conditions. How or when
could a soul-monad become buried in a foetal form ? If such an act could
take place, it would break up the inherited transmission of characters ; for
it is not credible that every door of descent is waylaid and watched by
just the style of soul-germs that can straightway be at home and carry on
the business at the old stand. It is plain that the whole process of evolu
tion of vitality into personal consciousness must take place within the
limits of human structure, and that the child is father of the man.
Could the unconscious form of the embryo select its appropriate soul
germ, and detach it from the world-cluster to absorb and incorporate it
through the mother ? By what nicety of instinct or affinity could the
moment of fertilization, or a subsequent moment of the foetal throb,
pick out of some great ether of vital monads just the proper soul-germ, so
that each human family might propagate its traits and accumulate its
ancestors ? It is impossible to conceive of any descent or amplification of
vitality except in the direct line of fructification, conception, and birth.
It is not absurd, then, to suppose that each human being started
from a finite beginning. He pre-existed only in the impulse of vitality.
It is objected that, if he was not an actual essence or monad that
pre-existed before his finite structure was brought up to the felicity of
receiving it, he could not continue after the physical structure had dis
appeared. Why not ? Personal continuance need not be supposed to
depend upon any special moment of eternal creativeness from which the
person may have started. It might be early or late : in Judæa, Greece, or
California. When a person starts, he need not be imagined to stop until
the infinite Personality out of which he started declines to project the
�39
vitality that propagates persons. If there be such a fact as personal
WOtinuance, it must depend only upon the impulse of vitality.
It does not trouble me that I cannot put my finger on the period of
human development when man began to have independent personality.
Who can tell when a child begins to have a consciousness of self, and to
say I, with a distinct feeling of what his speech involves ? Yet at length
he is found to be saying it, and to be converting the identity of conscious
ness into personal character. Ages of semi-human conditions may have
preceded, as years of characterless infancy precede, the assertion of per
sonal identity. The men of those developing ages may have perished
like ants that swarm in the pathway of feet. What of that, if a day
comes that speaks an imperishable word ?
That word is, I know Unity — I share Unity — I pass into consciousness
of Creative Laws — I touch the Mind from whom my mental method started,
and I thus become that circle’s infrangibility. My law of perceiving is *
so complete an expression of the law of creating, that I perceive, as the
Creator once perceived, that matter alone could not start with it nor end
in it. I know the laws which matter did not make. Then matter did not
make my knowledge.
Science does me this inestimable benefit of providing a universe to sup
port my personal identity, my moral sense, and my feeling that these two
functions of mind cannot be killed. Its denials, no less than its affirma
tions, set free all the facts I need to make my body an expression of
mental independence. Hand in hand with Science I go, by the steps of
development, back to the dawn of creation ; and, when there, we review all
the forces and their combinations which have helped us to arrive, and
both of us together break into a confession of a Force of forces.
Science has performed a mighty work against Theology, in freeing
us from its superstitions. We have picked ourselves up from Adam’s fall,
and are busy shaking that dust from our garments; geological cemeteries,
full of dead creatures, speak to exonerate us from the unhandsome trick of
having brought death and sin into the world; we shake the tree of knowl
edge, and woman helps us to shake it and devour the invigorating fruit;
there’s nothing edible which we do not perceive to be a divine invitation to
eat, with a conviction that the great Landlord is not plotting murder to
pillage our persons. We feel perfectly safe in every part of the house,
and are learning how to promote the interests of the Builder, by clearing
out corners that grow infectious, and correcting our own carelessness ; so
■that there is not a slur left to cast upon God. Death is discovered to be a
process of correlation and recombination of force; and we detect Heaven’s
wonderful footprint, that can never be mistaken, in the paths of evil.
Only let us know enough, re-enforce every gift with the beneficial facts,
�40
irrigate the whole surface of the mind with law, that our structures may
more happily repeat the health that mantles on the face of a universe.
Scientific men find themselves in opposition to almost every form of
theology, because the world is: they have no personal motive, and indulge
in pique no more than the great system whose movements and causes they
express. But Theology has so systematically libelled the Creator and
misled the creature ; so deliberately substituted trains of arbitrary thinking
for the law of Evolution; so depraved God by pretending the depravity
of man, to make a jailer of one and a felon of the other ; so placarded the
spotless plan with whimsical schemes of redemption; and so represented
the universal Love, as if it were confectionery to stop the whimper of re
turning sinners, — that Science might well transfix it with the contempt
of a gaze that is level with the horizon, and as brimful hot with the noon
day sun.
When the great observers are accused of disrespect towards Religion, it
would be well to remember how long, and to a period how late, men have
understood Religion to be something that is brought down by modified
systems of Theology, and to be dependent upon an act of faith in them.
Science takes men at their word; they point to a number of articles that
embody mental propositions ; they extol emotional and mystic states, and
exclaim, Behold, here is something better than good behavior, better than
health, superior to scientific interpretation,—- behold Religion I Science,
armed with all its glasses, curiously investigates this portent that as
sumes to be divinely accredited, and cannot discover a single germinal
dot, not a bit of plasma that might make one honest animalcule of a
spiritual man.
In the mean time, real Religion is busy with moral sense, right mental
method, true social feeling, ecstatic vision of the divine order, to appropriate
every genuine fact and put it to service in its scheme of humanity. How
ever violently Science may pretend to be hostile to Religion, there is nothing
in the world so religious as its method and industry. For Religion, in
stead of being, according to the old definitions, a restoration of rebellious
human nature to divine favor — attained by theological beliefs and emo
tional practices, by prayer and praise, by pietistic exaltations and homiletic
absorption — is simply the recurrence of human nature to the facts of the
universe.
At first, this definition seems to be a dry, pragmatic one, fit only to
express the old function of Theology, imperfectly exercised by it in meta
physical notions about the divine plan and nature. Theology always»
presumed that its statements represented facts. But Religion, recovering
of late from mediatorial emotions, enlists intelligence, arms itself with a
mental method that is the counterpart of the divine plan, and casts loose
�41
for ever from the speculations of Theology. Then it assumes the function
of indicating realities ; and every fact it gathers is a proclamation of God’s
love, or will, or wisdom, and an invitation to man to be on healthy terms
with these attributes. In recurring to the facts of a universe, man recurs
most sensibly to God. But this gesture can be made only with the help
of intelligence. Facts must be taught and known, not metaphysical con
trivances or scriptural formulas. The brain must learn to act upon its
own facts, in order to present the world with a body in normal condition
to perform a normal work. The relation between the finite and infinite
must be found upon lines of forces and stepping-stones of laws, not upon ,v
phrases and ceremonies. These weave no features of the infinite into
our life. As well might a woman expect by knitting to embroider the
zodiacal light upon her stocking. If she croons a favorite hymn of Watts
or Toplady over her work, the sky is still too cunning to descend, being
content to overlook her patient labor and to light the daily steps of the
little feet she covers. Her automatic action is superior, for religion, to all
her darling sentiment.
I close by noticing that Science benefits Religion with hints at a more
practical treament for the objects of moral and spiritual culture. The
technical results of scientific observation now begin to enrich every
department of life, as they flow into the kitchen and workshop, and down
all the streets; so that a man may draw at his door health and mental
nourishment, and find an alarm-box in every ward that will report what
ever threatens sanity and comfort. All the kingdoms of Nature contribute
their economical facts, which slowly find their way into social science,
into the methods of domestic life, into education and amusement. Man
was never so sumptuously served before with things to depend upon. He
learns what to eat, drink, and wear, how to ventilate his dwellings and to
build his fire. The most inventive minds teach him labor-saving pro
cesses, which aspire even to regulate and economize religion. This prompt
and convenient way of life begets a desire for facts: we want nothing
encumbering the house that we cannot use; theories go into the waste
basket, with a good many superfine emotions that were once thought to be
essential to a spiritual life. Sometimes, by picking over the basket, we
discover that gifts very dear to the household, legacies of eternity, have
been hastily thrown there, in the greed for clearing out all the corners
and ambushes for rubbish, to have nothing around that is not portable and
ready for immediate use.
This tendency to bring the art of living down to its practical mini
mum has gone so far that some sources of spiritual culture have fallen
into discredit. The newspaper, the lecture-room, the scientific cabinet,
the technological school, the special platform, is commended : men crave
6
�42
exactness and the current intelligence. They long to live creditably in
the present, because they have discovered it is the master of the future.
And American pulpits have certainly earned the distrust, if not contempt,
of the more robust portion of the people, by approaching all the critical
moments of the private or public life with their pill, their plaster, or
buchu, as they sound the trumpet of the quack before them in the market
place, to call their livelihood together.
There is something which may be called the vestry-sentiment, that acts
like choke-damp upon all natural ideas: it will breathe an artiiicial
compound, or prefer to be asphyxiated. A badly ventilated Scripture is
responsible for these moods, which cower over their little pile of smoul
dering texts, and shudder and protest at leaving all the doors ajar. It is
nourished upon phrases in books of mediatorial piety, and drops theatre
tears over its futile feeling of dependence, its consciousness of sin, or
faded appreciation of good behavior. Its disciples are the victims of fatty
degeneration, when it is their boast that they are nothing but heart. To
some of the churches of this want of faith, intelligence has penetrated far
enough to excite suspicions that the old phraseology has been outgrown;
they are almost ready to espouse the new Bibles of human information
and enthusiasm, not quite ready to cast off the damaged phraseology of
the clerical believers in miracles and grace : so that they remind one of the
garret of the eminent but rather penurious lawyer, which was found,
after his decease, filled with suits of clothes, each labelled, “ Too old to
wear, but too good to give away.”
Verbal statements of imaginary relations between man and God, set
off with appeals to a kind of average religiosity, compose the sanitary
method of such churches. It lets more blood than it makes: precious
life-drops of the common people, squandered in artificial excitements, in
political compromises, and in the awful campaigns that restore natural
religion to mankind.
A better method will set in whenever the pulpit prefers confirmed real
ities, and looks for them in every province that the wit of man visits, —
when the only question it asks relative to any subject is, What are the
facts ? Let us know the conclusion of the best minds and the most de
voted hearts, let us preach the salvation that intelligence reveals. Open
wide the door of the meeting-house, so that the six days can wheel up to
it, and deposit what the earth and sky manufacture, all the certainties of
all the arts, and every emotion that bears the stamp of sincerity.
Nothing can come amiss, if it comes from a quarter where honest hand
work or head-work has been engaged. The whole universe is let down to
the level of the preacher’s desk, creeping tilings as well as winged. The
voice says: “ Slay and eat them, for there is nothing common or unclean
�43
that God has made.” Nature has sometimes furnished the pulpit with
illustrations: she is ready now to provide the texts and substance also,
and to occupy the whole discourse.
But the treatment must be ideal. All the facts, after passing through
the technical treatment of the platform, the lecture-room, and scientific
session, to receive their diplomas of utility, must come into the pulpit
bringing mankind with them, as into a place where separate localities can
be seen to melt into one broad horizon, stretching so far that eternity is
overtaken and included, and the souls of the spectators are greatly ennobled
to perceive that all their little functions build the endless view.
What is ideal treatment ? A kind that is neither metaphysical nor emo
tional. It is not the investiture of subjects with a poetical form, nor the
speculative infirmity that broods upon an empty nest. There must be a
real egg beneath, for warmth and devoted patience to quicken. The ideal
treatment is that deference to the natural law of every thing which puts
into it the divine breath. To the pulpit is consigned the task of showing
that the earth, the air, the water, swarm with vital germs; that no sub
stance is too solid to resist their penetration, none too thin to support
them ; that man himself is a compendium of them, and in his soul they find
a tongue to express how religious they are, how implicated with the life
and love of the Creator. Ideal treatment sets forth the ideas that corre
spond to every fact and circumstance. It is bent upon proving that they
arise in the soul, and are not transitory views, or impressions depending
upon the position of the spectator, or digested from his food; that they
have a continuity in the laws of Nature and in the persons of men and
women, and are thus connected with the moral order, are self-sustaining,
and derive no authority from any source save Nature herself; and that the
only religious certitude we can enjoy is provided by the harmony between
things, necessities, organizations, and the laws of things.
After the Essay, the President appealed to the audience to
contribute money for the maintenance of the Association, and
said the Finance Committee would pass through the hall and
collect the contributions. He then introduced Rev. Cyrus A.
Bartol, D.D., as one of the oldest and most honored friends of
the Association.
Dr. Bartol said that the essay was like the kaleidoscope, which as they
looked straightway was enlarged and lengthened out; and they saw it was
not only the kaleidoscope of beauty, but the telescope of truth. For him
self, he was not anxious to run a line of demarcation between the lower
�44
creatures and man. lie did not see that it could be drawn clearly. If there
were a place to get into any part of God’s kingdom of life and nature a
distinction of the finest knife, the universe were chaos, and not a universe.
His inability to distinguish between animal nature and human nature was
the sign and proof to him that they could not cut off, on the other side,
between human nature and angelic nature. The old motto, “ The whirli
gig of time brings around strange revenges,” came back to him. They
were told, during the long anti-slavery discussion, “ Why concern yourselves
about these negroes ? They are not men, they are apes.” And lo ! Mr.
Darwin, the cold scientific man, came in and showed them that the white
man was just as much the kin of the monkey. So they were all in the same
boat. He did not want therefore to cut himself off from his lower fel
low-creatures, his “poor relations.” The man who cut himself off from kind
ness to them, from acknowledging some common nature with them, was the
man who ran the most risk of not being admitted to his rich relations by
and by. As he was walking about in the fields, he heard a song that
filled the sky. He hunted a long time before he could find whence it came;
and it was a little brown bird about two inches long, singing, singing, sing
ing, not tired at all, minute after minute, till he was amazed to understand
how the bird could keep it up so. What immense vitality, or what draught
from an infinite fountain of life it must have had ! It continued that song
till he felt God was behind the bird just as much as behind him. Indeed,
he thought birds were the best prophets. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, inspired
as they were, yet mixed some human will and human calculation with
their prophecy ; but the birds prophesy, saying, “ God is ; ” “ All is well; ”
“ There is joy in the universe; ” “ Somebody is having a good time all
through this creation.” The bird was a very unsuspicious prophet; and he
would believe him sooner than he would Jeremiah, who didn’t sing, “ God
is cheerful.” He was willing to trust God for the hereafter. If he was
going to let him go among angels, very well; he did not ask of God any
note of hand — he believed in him. But meantime let them treat kindly
the relations they saw, those they were acquainted with. He really
thought the new feeling that would come through science, and through the
religious sentiment, that the lower animals — the horse, the oxen, and the
rest — were fellow-creatures (as Burns said the mouse was), when it once
impregnated the human mind, would do more for humanity to those animals
than a thousand of Mr. Bergh’s societies. So he was not ashamed of the
long animal train — who should say where it began ? — that men dragged
after them.
He wanted to say a word in regard to what is called Radicalism and Con
servatism. People did not like the word radical; but could they help it ?
They did not make it. It was born of the hour. It was a thunder-bolt
�45
that came down out of the cloud, and they could not get rid of it. It was
objected by the conservative that the radical was a denier; but it seemed
to him that the radical did not say “ no ” half so often as he said “ yes.”
He said yes to Nature. The old conservative theology had not got over
»tying no to Nature. The first shape it took was that God was too high
to dirty his hand in making this world. He did it by proxy. Then there
was the idea that he left it to run itself; only, being a little ashamed of
his work, he stretched out his hand to mend his ways with a miracle ;
Nature was a sort of hell he made to hide away in. The radical believed
that God, like man, was not concealed, but revealed by his works ; and, if
understood at all, it must be through his works. Nature was not an eclipse
of him; it was, if any thing, a crystal transparency, the crystal-palace of
God. The world was God’s robe, his living garment. The radical be
lieved what it was reported he said, that what he had made “ was good.”
The radical also said yes to human nature. The old conservative, when
he found that he could not clean God out of Nature, tried to put him out
of human nature. The radical said, “ No : human nature was Nature with
an addition; and it was blasphemy against God to decry human nature.”
He had rather not be, than to be what the old Calvinistic theology had
said men were. The man who preached the doctrine.of evil as an essence
or an eternal thing did not believe in God. Even the Commune of Paris,
which had just gone down elbow-deep in blood, was not totally depraved.
The radical said yes also to progress. People told them they must
respect the past. He would say, Certainly respect the obligations to the
past; but as in legislation, so in religion, the question was, not what had
been done before, but what was next in order. A friend of his had a pair of
horses so large that they had to be fed out of doors, because there was no
Stable in the town large enough to admit them; and so there were men
who would have to receive their spiritual food out of. doors till the churches
were enlarged: he did not mean enlargement of the pews to make room
for a human body to sit down, but such an enlargement as would make room
for a human soul to stand up. The congregations were too much bound
by old phrases, and by continually worked-over forms of words a thousand
or two thousand years old, as if they could make religion out of them.
In closing, Dr. Bartol gave several interesting illustrations of the law of
human sympathy and kindness, which is able to bind all classes and per
sons together in the bonds of a true church and a natural communion.
Rev. Henry Ierson, of England, was then introduced. He said that
in his experience he had found that whenever men set themselves off under
particular names and sects, and divided themselves from other people, they
did mischief both to themselves and others. After a man was ticketed as
belonging to a denomination, if he said any thing not in accordance with
�46
the usual language of that denomination, he was looked upon with suspi
cion. When there was no ticket, men could meet each other as simply fel
low-creatures of God; and he presumed that was the spirit of the meeting
that day. There were certain old notions that stood in the way, and the ques
tion was, What to do with them ? It was idle to say that men must live past
them; for it was impossible to disregard what had had a history in human
thought for centuries, and also had a present living power. It was idle to
bow in respect before them, simply because they were old ; but what had
been at any time a vital power in the world had a title to his respect which
he was prepared to acknowledge. He would not quarrel with his childhood
nor the methods of his early life ; neither would he quarrel with the child
ish beliefs of the early world. But he could not help trying to find out
about their origin, for he had such an interest in humanity that he felt
obliged to apologize to civilization for the stupid things people had believed
in past ages. In regard to the scientific men of England, he said that
their position with reference to these old questions was not perfectly un
derstood there. Huxley and Tyndall, and the other leaders of science, were
a long, long way from being atheists, and they would be greatly grieved if
any thing they had said had justly and properly brought on them this re
proach. But they did not believe in the first chapters of Genesis, and could
not help saying so. But they did not generally trouble themselves to give
their creeds, because such matters were between the human soul and God.
Mr. Ierson was sure that scientific observation was not the root of religion,
and therefore it could never teach religion as popularly understood.
And the men of science, he said, distinguished between the basis of
religion and the basis of scientific fact and law. He counselled those
who heard him not to be too anxious and over-eager to define their posi
tion, if they were asked to do so. They must make the world feel that
they were really impressing some principle upon it, and then the question
would be answered for them. They must show the world that they doubted
in the first place in order to believe afterwards, and in the second place from
the ground of a temperate belief that compelled them to doubt.
Rev. William H. Spencer was the next speaker. He took a general
survey of the relation between Religion and Science as it had been in the
past, as it was at present, and as he thought it ought to be. They all
knew how Religion looked upon Science first as a bastard boy, entitled to
none of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which she
enjoyed. Religion hated Science because she feared it. While yet in its
infancy, Science came to the conclusion that the earth was not flat, but
round like a marble; and then, when a little older, that the sun did not
revolve around the earth, but the earth around the sun; and then it grew
bold to say that the world was not made in six days. At each of these
�47
declarations, Religion was greatly alarmed for her safety, and declared that
Science would slay her, if he was not stopped in his career. She tried to
stop him herself by the old appliances of persecution, — the rack, the fire,
the dungeon; but each time Science managed to escape and live. The
attitude of Religion to Science had been not that of a brother, but that of
a cruel master to a slave. The attitude of Science for a long time was that
of a cringing slave begging its life of its master But Science to-day was
free. It had emancipated itself from thraldom to Religion. Sometimes,
perhaps, it was a little boisterous and arrogant; and some persons seemed
to fear that Science would now have its revenge on Religion for her past
persecutions. But there was no cause for alarm. Science regarded Religion
with cool indifference and was peaceably disposed; but Religion had not
yet buried the tomahawk. But since the Church in the past had always
been found fighting against truth when fighting against hypothetical science,
it would behoove her to keep hands off now. We must be ready to accept
every thing that Science can positively prove. Mr. Spencer said that he
wanted truth, and he wanted immortality: truth with immortality, if he
could have it; but without it, if he must. He believed that Religion
needed in this age nothing so much as the scientific spirit that looks facts
right in the face ; and Science needed something that Religion might give,
— a spirit of filial trust in the truth. Science was the knowledge of law,
and Religion was trust in the law. They should live peaceably together.
He believed that in the future they would be reconciled and harmonized ;
that each would discover that the other was not its enemy, but friend, and
would help each other to nobler development. Disciplined by the experi
ences of life, they would be joined at last in a true marriage, to the great
gain of both.
The President then asked Colonel T. W. Higginson to add his
word : —
He said : —Mr. Chairman, I should hardly venture to say even a clos
ing word at this late hour of the morning only that, much as has been
said to-day, there are one or two things that ought, it seems to me, still
to be said. I think we all felt, during those two noble statements that
came from Mr. Weiss and Mr. Bartol, that we had attained what Mr.
Emerson pointed out in his first speech here as his desideratum for this
society, — “ the luxury of a religion that does not degrade men.” And, in
the possession of that luxury, I only wish to dwell on one special point
which may not have been enough emphasized even yet, — how large a
part of that luxury consists in the absence of fear. I know of no religious
platform in Christendom except this where men can consistently stand and
�48
say that in their secret souls, whatever happens as the result of investi
gation, they are not afraid, but ready to trust the truth. Go where you
please, you find a creed or a basis of thought which implies the possibility
of an alternative, which has an “if” somewhere; and that “ if” a terrific
one. No matter how sure the theologian may be of his position, it always
seems based upon a certain line of historic probabilities; and a discovered
variation in the testimony of one human being, the change of a single
text, the error of one version, however unwelcome he may think it, how
ever he may shrink from accepting, if he is once compelled to accept it,
may overturn his faith. There is always some alternative he cannot bear
to contemplate, some fact he cannot look in the face. No man is strong, so
long as there is an “ if.” While the case is open and pending for any
man still unsettled, so that some future Darwin or Tyndall may yet dis
turb it, that man is not strong and he is not free. But when a man
comes on this platform, he usually accepts the universe as it is, fearless
of results. Let the path of science be followed to its ultimates and being
back any answer, still he is ready to face it. That man, and that type of
religion, is strong.
I remember in college days they put before us a book to be studied,
called “ The Evidences of Religion.” It startled me as I have hardly
been startled since. What! the evidences of religion ? the case is still
open then ; the matter is in court, is it ? I, too, am on the jury to decide ;
I thought that was settled long ago. My mother never told me when
she first sung her cradle songs over me in childhood, — she never told me
that her religion was founded on “evidences,” implying the possibility of
an “if” at the other side of them. I never dreamed in childhood that
religion was among the doubtful things in the universe. But in college
they didn’t give us “ evidences ” of mathematics; they didn’t offer us a
book treating of the evidences of chemistry. Those were treated as exact
sciences, based on axioms or on recognized facts. It was when we came
to the “ evidences” of religion that the college professors hinted doubts to
us of which our mothers never had given the prediction.
I was not quite satisfied with the tone of some of the statements made
this morning in regard to some of those great scientific men of Europe.
It seemed to be thought essential to show that, whatever their doubts may
be, they never doubted God. That is not what I wanted to know. Our
friend Ierson thought Darwin and Huxley would feel themselves affronted
at being called atheists. Why should they feel affronted if science leads
them out so ? There is a second question with me, — suppose they are
atheists, what then ? If atheism is true, who would not be an atheist ?
If immortality is a dream, who would not know it is a dream? I have no
share in such doubts of God or immortality myself. What of that ? I
�49
am not starving to-day; but I want to know that there is manhood
enough in me, if put in a dungeon to starve to death, to bear it as my
brothers bore it in Andersonville. It is not because I am starving now,
but if starvation is my sentence, I want to meet it as becomes a man. If
I were to be starved of my God by the conclusions of science, I should
wish to stand that also as a man ; and I believe it can be done. Personally,
I do not believe that result is coming ; I have no fear of it. But it is not
so important to know what is or is not coming from science as to know
that, whatever comes, truth is truth and man is man. I would say to the
atheist, if the worst come to the worst, — if God be a dream, man is not.
If I am nevei- to see the face of Deity, thank Heaven I see all of yours. If
I were to have no heaven beyond the grave, it is much to possess to
day ; and if man has health and life and love and a June day, is not that
enough for infinite hymns of gratitude, even if he knew he was to lie
down that night, and sleep to wake no more ? O my friends ! we deceive
ourselves ; we wrong our little children, by narrowing in their basis of
belief and making them think that unless they can convince themselves
thus or so they are hopeless and miserable. Don’t shudder if your child
reads a scientific book and temporarily doubts God. If you have been to
Mm what you should be, he wont doubt man; or, if he doubts man, he
wont doubt woman. Do not frown if he honestly doubts immortality.
Teach him to live the life here nobly, if the universe never granted him
another day. That is the way to meet science ; not by simply asking of
it the boon to live, but by so living and so thinking that science is but a
part of our basis of supply, and science may come or go and leave us still
the same. I have never doubted immortality; but if you have once made
up your mind that even if immortality were a dream your life shall not
be one, I don’t believe that any result of science can be formidable. The
only thing that seems to me dangerous in any way in science is that
very likely it is going for the time being to substitute a new hierarchy
for the old one: a race of conceited professors instead of a race of con
ceited clergymen; men who teach you to depend too much on magnets
and microscopes, as the other side taught you to depend too much on
Bibles and prophets. But then this new aristocracy of intellect among
our great scientific teachers has the advantage over the old one that the
new aristocracy of wealth has over the old aristocracy of power: it may
lose good manners, it may lose good taste, but at any rate it has the
advantage that it means the man himself, and not the man’s grandfather.
It is based on something done to-day, and not something done day before
yesterday. I say of theology, when it yields place to science, “ Ze roi est
mort; vive le roi,” — “ The king is dead; long live the new king,” — not but
I believe that there is a time coming when all the kings shall be no more ;
7
�50
and all the forces of our nature — science and life, heart and intellect —
shall come together in a great democracy, with God alone for President.
Science will never, can never, take its highest place in this world unless it
recognizes its own limitations, unless it owns that the emotions of the
heart, and the aspirations of the religious sentiment, the resolves of duty,
— nay, even the great pictures of imagination, twin principles with itself, —
are yet greater than itself. Science, the best of servants to man, may yet
be the worst of masters. But we may be sure that the same development
of the race that trained science will train at last all the other faculties;
and that the great scientific era of the future, of which we dream, will
show also purer sanctities of life and higher reverence for religion than
any superstition of the past could conceive.
The meeting was then adjourned until half-past three o’clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On reassembling at
p.m., it was announced by the President,
in behalf of the Committee of Arrangements, that, besides the
speakers in the programme for the day, a number of persons,
scientific men and others, had been invited to take part in the
discussions, who for one reason or another were unable to accept
the invitations. The Committee had desired that the discussion
should be as many-sided as possible, and it was not their fault if
it was not so. He then introduced the Secretary of the Associa
tion, Mr. W. J. Potter, who had consented to read an Essay in
-place of that expected from Rabbi Wise. Mr. Potter first read a
brief note from Dr. Wise explaining why he could not meet the
appointment, but adding that he was “ nevertheless heart and
soul with the Association, — with truth, progress, and enlighten
ment.” Mr. Potter also read short letters, expressive of interest
and good-will, from Gerrit Smith and William Lloyd Garrison,
who had been among those invited, but who were unable to be
present. Then saying a few words of the difficulty of filling such
a gap in the arrangements as that caused by the regretted
absence of Dr. Wise, he proceeded to the subject of his Essay.
♦
�51
ESSAY BY WILLIAM J. POTTER.
Natural Genesis of Christianity, and its Relation to Preceding
Religions.
The patriot Kossuth used to strike the key-note of his wonderful
political addresses with the phrase, “The Solidarity of Nations.” So
would I, in humbler fashion, declare as the watch-word for this hour in
religious history the solidarity of religions. There are certain elementary
principles common alike to all religions and native to the human con
sciousness, which make the soil out of which spring all specific religious
systems, all forms of worship, all theologies and faiths. These principles
In their rudimentary form are not ideas, but the germs of ideas. We can
give no other account of them than that they are the in-coming of a
power that was before humanity into humanity. And just as we find in
every phase and condition of humanity certain rudimentary principles of
intelligence, which furnish the basis of all subsequent thinking, reasoning,
knowing, and impart those universal elements that make science, logic,
truth, to be recognized as essentially the same thing among all races of
men and all round the globe, so the different religions rest at bottom on
a common basis, and may recognize each other by certain universal ele
ments that may be traced back to the natural common outfit with which
the human race started on its career.
And these rudimentary religious faculties are subject to the same con
ditions of development to which the human mind in general is subject;
that is, to the natural conditions which attach to all human existence.
They do not therefore always develop in the same shape nor to the same
degree. As the conditions vary according to locality, climate, period,
outward circumstance of every kind, so the phase of development varies.
As we find different races and nations standing at different heights of in
telligence, of art, of science, of general civilization and enlightenment, so
do we find them, and just as naturally, at different stages in religious
development. And as we find among every people individuals who stand
higher than the mass as statesmen, or poets, or philosophers, or inventors,
— the Homers, Newtons, Shakspeares, Washingtons, — so do we find,
and just as naturally, those in whom the religious faculties predominate,
and who in consequence have a clearer insight into religious truth and
can make a better expression of it than the average mind of the people
around them; and just in proportion to the force and clearness with
which these persons express what the common heart of the people has
had hints of, aspired after, struggled after, just in proportion as they
realize in word and in life the ideal held in the heart of their nation or
�52
neighborhood, will they be listened to as speaking with authority — very
likely with supernatural authority — and be followed as divinely appointed
religious guides; For the human mind instinctively believes that Heaven
will indorse and commission its best thought and hope.
Hence the belief in supernaturalism, common to all religions, rests upon
a perfectly natural basis. The popular mind in an early stage of culture
cannot conceive truth abstractly. It catches a glimpse of it and sights by
that, but cannot bring the truth home to full comprehension until it has
put it in some concrete form. From this fact come the vulgar ideas of
creation, of inspiration, of God communicating outwardly and mechani
cally with man, which have prevailed in all religious systems. There
must be, according to the popular interpretation, definiteness of locality
and persons, visible appearances, real voices, some mysterious kind of
mechanical instrumentality between heaven and earth, in order that these
wise men and prophets should have such knowledge and power. And so
the primary religious sentiment, as it has developed into form and ex
pression through the popular understanding, has everywhere gathered
about its career legendary stories, myths, miracles. These are, as it
were, the crystallization into which religious ideas have been precipitated
in the solution of the common understanding. But go behind these
stories, break through the crust of fable and myth, get at the kernel of
reported miracle, and, however various, grotesque, and unbelievable the
narratives may be, we shall find a thread by which we may trace them
back to a common source, and to some germ of vital spiritual truth.
So, too, when we fathom the different religious systems in respect to
their higher declarations to their depths, we find, amidst all their variety
of creed and ritual, that a unity pervades them all, and that they all ex
press, with greater or less completeness according to the intelligence and
culture of the people, the same fundamental religious sentiments which
inhere naturally in the consciousness of humanity. “ There are diversi
ties of gifts, but the same spirit; differences of operations, but it is the
same God which worketh all in all.” We may say that the stream of
religious history, having its source in the primitive religious sentiment
common to mankind, and swollen from time to time by an influx from the
natural inspiration of great souls, and constantly increased and freshened
from every little spring and rill along its path which are fed to-day in
the same way as the original spring of all, comes down through the cen
turies, taking color and conformation, and even more interior qualities, as
of purity and salubrity, from the soil of the national mind through which
it flows. It takes also in its course different names according to national
or local, external or internal, characteristics, — as here Buddhism, there
Judaism, and so on; sometimes it is named for persons who have specially
�53
Utilfeed the flowing current, and turned it into new channels for human
advantage. But analyze the waters of this stream, and, though there be
great difference in volume and power, the constituent elements will be
found everywhere nearly the same, — the same vital parts that were
combined in the first conscious aspiration after truth and virtue that was
ever breathed upward from a human soul. We may apply the modern
scientific doctrine of the conservation and correlation of forces to the
history of religious evolution. Everywhere is one Primal Force, one
spiritual energy, one revealing power, one revelation, coming up from
the beginning, now and for ever, through the deep wells of human con
sciousness, wherein are the springs of Divinity; and these different names,
as Hindu, Jewish, Greek, Christian, only mark the altitude to which the
revelation has risen or the conformation it has assumed in the Hindu,
Hebrew, Greek, and Christian intelligence. Religion is one, and all its
revelations natural; religious systems are but higher or lower phases in
the natural development of the religious sentiment.
From these general remarks on the unity that pervades all varieties
of religion and binds all together by one chain of natural historic se
quence, let us proceed to consider the more specific question: How
stands Christianity in this order of religious development? How is it
related to the religions that preceded it ? And, more generally, how is it
related to universal or absolute religion ?
There has been no more difficult problem in Christian theology for
those who make a distinction between “ natural ” and “ revealed ” religion
than to draw the line between them; that is, to say just how much re
ligious truth the human mind might have been able to discover through
its natural faculties, and at what point it was necessary that a supernatural
revelation should come to the aid of the natural faculties. The difficulty
of the problem is twofold. First, there is a philosophical difficulty. It
is evident, and is admitted, that the human mind by its natural faculties
must be capable to some extent of forming religious conceptions; other
wise it could not possibly receive a revelation. It must at least have
Some idea of a Divine Being, and conceive of him also as a being of
veracity, before, it can possibly receive and rely upon any communication
as coming from him. Again, sufficient dignity and ability must be al
lowed to the human mind to make it not only worthy of receiving a
revelation, but capable of appreciating and using the revelation when
received. And so it becomes a very nice problem to draw the line at
just the proper point between the natural ability of the human mind
which makes a special revelation available, and the natural disability of
the human mind which makes a special revelation necessary. Theologians
have a good deal of skill in metaphysical tight-rope performances ; but in
�54
this case the rope is so very slender that they have never managed to
keep their balance on it with much success. The danger is that if the
natural ability of the human mind be 'strongly stated, an opponent may
retort, “ A mind thus endowed is capable of reaching through its natural
powers all the truth you claim for a special revelation,” — which is the
actual objection that has been brought against two of the greatest English
writers on this subject — Dr. Cudworth and Bishop Butler — who placed
the powers of the human mind so high, in order to show how it was nat
urally adapted to and harmonized with Christianity, that they were
charged with endangering the argument for the necessity of a miraculously
revealed religion. On the V)ther hand, if the natural disability of the hu
man mind be strongly stated so as to set forth the necessity of a specific
revelation, there is peril of undermining the argument on the other side;
of which theological crime, a more recent English writer, also of the
'Evangelical party, has been accused—Mr. Mansel—who has argued that
the human mind is utterly incapable of forming any conception of infinite
and absolute truth, and so has proved, it is alleged, not so much the
necessity of a miraculous revelation as the impossibility of any revelation
of the Supreme Being!
Secondly, there is a historical difficulty in the way of those who attempt
to draw a line of separation between Christianity and the so-called natu
ral religions, as if there were no natural relationship between them.
Historically, whether we regard the contents of the religions or the man
ner of their origin, there is no such separation, — no gap or chasm across
which we cannot trace the lines of natural genealogy and kinship. It
would be difficult to find in Christianity any fundamental truth of religion
or morality, nay, any theological dogma or opinion, or narrative of won
ders, that did not have a parallel expression in some anterior religion.
The ideas may be differently illustrated and emphasized in the different
religions, and so may make a very different impression; but those that are
most fundamental and central cannot be claimed as the exclusive property
of any specific faith. The immortality of the soul, the unity and pure
spirituality of Deity, the communion of the human soul with the Divine,
the superiority of the spirit to the letter, the inner light, — these ideas
have found as clear expression in other religions as they have in
Judaism and Christianity. The fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of
man; the obligations of justice, of purity, of probity, of love to the neigh
bor ; the principle of the Golden Rule, the overcoming of evil with good,
the intention of the heart rather than the outward act the test of virtue, —
these central truths of practical religion found distinct and abundant
utterance in various religions before Christianity. (I will not take the
room to cite the passages I have collected on this point, but will refer
�55
those who wish for information, and yet cannot go to the original sources,
to Mr. Samuel Johnson’s essay on the “ Natural Sympathy of Religions ”
read at our last Annual Meeting, and printed in the Report of the pro
ceedings ; and to Mr. T. W. Higginson’s article on the same subject pub
lished in the “ Radical ” for February, 1871, and since printed by the Free
Religious Association in a separate pamphlet; and also to another excellent
paper in the “ Radical” for March, 1868, by Mr. Samuel Longfellow, on
“ The Unity and Universality of Religious Ideas.” ) If we look more par
ticularly at theological beliefs, the resemblance between Christianity and
Some of the older religions is also very remark^le. Centuries before Jesus
We find the ideas of Incarnation, Mediatorship, the Fall of Man, Sacrificial
Atonement, Redemption, Pre-existence, Resurrection of the Body, a fu
ture Judgment-day, of God as “ one substance and three images,” — in
short, all the paraphernalia of a Calvinistic “ Body of Divinity.” This
resemblance penetrates into parts purporting to be historical narrative.
Krishna, in the Hindoo theology, is the Redeemer. He was born, it is
believed, to save the world from the oppression of a tyrant. His parents,
at the time of his birth, were in a humble prison. In the presence of the
heavenly babe the fetters that bound the prisoners were broken asunder,
and the cell dazzled with supernatural light; joy and sorrow over
whelmed the unhappy parents. A heavenly voice whispered to the
father to flee with the young child across the River Jomuna, in order to
save its life. Then the tyrant who had sought to destroy the child, en
raged with disappointment, sent messengers and put to death all the
infants in the neighborhood. (J. Gangooly’s Life and Religion of the
Hindoos.) I need not repeat the similar story, as found in the New Tes
tament, in the early history of Jesus. There is a striking similarity also
between what Christian writers are accustomed to call the legends con
cerning the birth and post-mortem judicial offices of Osiris and Buddha,
and what they are accustomed to recite as facts in the corresponding parts
of the.career of Jesus. Similar miracles, with attesting heavenly voices,
are alleged as attending the birth of all three; and after death it is claimed
for them all that they descended into hell, and thence ascended to heaven
to sit as judge of the dead and dispenser of the rewards of immortal life.
Now, the question comes, how are these wonderful resemblances to be
accounted for, on the supposition that Christianity has no historical con
nection with these various religions that came before it? It may be
asserted, to be sure, in spite of these resemblances that Christianity has
no natural relationship to other religions; that these great declarations
of moral and spiritual truth (leaving aside the legendary narratives),
though found in previous religions, were yet given by original and special
revelation to Christianity. But then the further question would come,
�56
Why was a special and miraculous revelation necessary to reveal these
truths in Judaea which were open to all the rest of mankind through their
natural faculties ? Indeed, the more cautious defenders of a miraculous
revelation have yielded this point, and given up all the fundamental
truths both of morality and practical religion as within the scope of the
natural human faculties, retaining only as revealed truth the peculiar
Christian scheme of Atonement and Redemption. Bishop Butler, for in
stance, says that Christianity has two offices. First, it is a republication
of natural religion. He does not claim that it adds any thing new in re
gard to our duties towards God. Natural religion, he expressly admits,
teaches that God is our Father, and what we owe to him as such. But,
secondly, he says, Christianity contains an account of a particular dis
pensation of God not discoverable by reason; viz., the redemption of
mankind (who, as he thinks, are represented in Scripture to be in a state
of ruin) through the atoning offices of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
And this theological dogma, with the duties of observance growing out of
it, is the only thing which Bishop Butler, one of the ablest and most
scholarly exponents that Christian faith has ever had, claims as strictly
original to Christianity. He would be met, of course, by the whole array
of Unitarian and other Liberal Christian writers, with the assertion that
this dogma, at least as he understood it, is not to be found in primitive
Christianity. But, even if it were, it would be difficult to prove that it is
peculiar to Christianity. The substance of the Christian dogma of the
Atonement, and something very like the form of it, appear in other re
ligions. Yet it may be true, as Bishop Butler says, that it is “ not dis
coverable by reason,” — probably because there is no reason in it. There
are certainly a good many doctrines in all religions that did not come
from reason, and which reason will never indorse.
Another claim for a special revelation in Christianity, akin to this of
Bishop Butler, but freed, it is thought, from its theological vitiation, is
sometimes made, — made especially by theologians of the Liberal Chris
tian school. The one peculiar word of God in Christianity, not found in
Nature, not known through the intuitions of reason, is, it is said, his love
for the sinner. A recent learned and popular writer expresses it thus:
“ Christianity is a revelation of pardon to the conscience, of peace to re
morse, of hope to despair. No other revelation says any thing plainly of
this; none offers forgiveness of sin. The laws of Nature never pardon.
Law, as such, cannot forgive: it can only reward obedience and punish
disobedience. No intuition of reason, nothing in the absolute religion
of the soul, says more. But, in Christ, God makes a special revelation of
his forgiving and saving love. As the mother is more proud of her
strong, manly son, but loves more tenderly the sick, deformed, or crippled
�57
child; as the father rejoices in the virtues of his good, faithful, upright
children, has them ever with him, and considers all that he has to be
theirs, but yet yearns with a peculiar tenderness toward the poor, half
dead prodigal; so God in Christ manifests an infinite tenderness of pity
towards the discouraged, the forlorn, the outcasts, and the reprobates.”
Now that this passage accurately and beautifully represents what was a
distinguishing trait in the spirit and teachings of Jesus may be readily
admitted ; but is it quite just to human nature, is it just to historical facts
and to the Supreme Being himself, to say that the idea of divine pity and
forgiveness, however much it was elevated and newly illustrated and
exemplified by Jesus, came then for the first time into human conscious
ness ? Where is it that it is written, the Lord “ forgiveth all thine
iniquities; crowneth thee with loving-kindness and tender mercies ; he
hath not dealt with us after our sins ” ? No intimations of divine for
giveness in Nature, nor in the intuitions of the human heart ? Whence
then this very comparison with which the writer illustrated his argument ?
“ As the mother is more proud of her strong, manly son, but loves more
tenderly the sick, deformed, or crippled child ” — ah 1 here it is, in the
natural intuitive tenderness of a true human mother’s heart by which she
folds more closely to her bosom an unfortunate child, — here it is, in nat
ural human love, that the Infinite Parent has been proclaiming from the
beginning of our race his own pardoning, saving, pitying tenderness. No
intuition of forgiveness, of love for the outcast and despairing, in human
reason? How was it Jesus himself taught this doctrine of divine for
giveness, but by appealing, as in the parable of the Prodigal Son, to the
natural love and forgiveness of an earthly father ? So far from claiming
to teach a new doctrine on this point, he hastened to show his hearers
that it was the old revelation of their own hearts.
^Nor is it quite true to facts even to claim, as is sometimes done, that
Christianity Is the first and only religion in which charity and philan
thropy have been organized into public institutions. It is true that in
the limits of modern Christendom there has been a remarkable develop
ment of instituted benevolence. And it is easy to show that all this is in
harmony with the life and teachings of Jesus; but not so easy to prove
that it is all the direct historical result of his career, nor the exclusive
fruit of Christian training. Philanthropy is better organized under
modern civilization, just as all social forces are better organized; yet
that kind of organized benevolence which gives to the word philanthropy
its modern significance in Christendom hardly dates back a single century.
To no small extent, indeed, the distinctive Christian Church has put itself
in antagonism to Philanthropy and Social Reform; and, even in the
limits of Christendom itself, the practical humanities of the age are quite
�58
as much in the hands of heretics as of Orthodox believers. But a fact
more to the present point is that charity was socially organized to a con
siderable degree before the time of Jesus, and that Christianity for a num
ber of centuries introduced no great change in this respect. Sakia Mouni
and Zoroaster both laid great stress on regular and daily acts of benevolence
as an essential part of religion. The Chinese have all those public insti
tutions of philanthropy and mercy which are commonly supposed to be
specially characteristic of modern Christendom, — such as Orphan Asy
lums, Institutions for the Relief of Widows, and for the Aged and In
firm of both sexes, Public Hospitals, Free Dispensaries of Medicine ; and,
what Christendom, I believe, has not yet had, Asylums of Mercy for the
dumb animals. All these institutions, together with Free Schools, date
back their origin in China to a time long anterior to the contact of the
people with Christianity. The Jews instituted benevolence in their laws,
— as, for instance, in the commands not to deliver to his master an
escaped bondman, and to extend hospitality and justice to strangers;
and, in the still more beautiful laws, that the widow’s raiment should not
be taken in pledge for debt, and that the gleanings of the harvests should
be left in the fields and vineyards for the poor. The Essenes were a
brotherhood of charity as well as of religion; taking care of the poor,
the sick, and the old, with true fraternal interest and love. The remark
able resemblance, indeed, between this Jewish sect, which flourished just
before the Christian era and disappeared so soon after, has led some
writers to identify it with the early Christians. It does seem quite prob
able that the sect was absorbed into the Christian brotherhood, and that
the striking resemblance between the two fraternities in respect to moral
and social habits was more than accidental. This little sect, departing in
some important particulars from the Hebrew faith and traditions, and
introducing features that belonged more to other religions, may be, in
deed, the historical connecting link through which Christianity was
directly joined with the great religious systems and faiths anterior to it.
And this brings me to the point which I have had specially in view in
making this comparison in respect to theological and ethical features be
tween Christianity and previous religions. The point is not that Chris
tianity is not superior to those previous religions, nor that it has not done
greater service than they in the development of humanity, but that it
came into the world by a process entirely natural, and has a perfectly
natural relationship to those antecedent forms of faith. As coming later
in the line of history and combining a larger number of vital historic
elements, it should be by natural law a richer and more effective faith.
But the point to which I wish to direct attention now is simply this, —
that Christianity, instead of being in any sense a supernatural, or
�59
extraordinary interpolation into the course of religious history, had its
natural genesis in the previous historic development of the nations and
countries where it appeared ; that, instead of originating in a sudden and
marvellous interruption of the natural chain of historical sequence, it
was the legitimate result of natural social forces which the unbroken
chain of that sequence logically involved. Christianity was separated
from previous religious systems in no other way than the babe when the
hour of birth has arrived is separated from the mother that has borne it.
But it may be asked, Is there any evidence, other than these resem
blances in sentiment and doctrine, that Christianity had an actual histori
cal relationship with older forms of faith, — at least with any other but
the Hebrew, w'hich it abrogated? And may. not‘these resemblances,
after all, be purely accidental? To show that natural causes wrere
Sufficient to produce Christianity, it is enough to point out that its
fundamental truths and doctrines have been developed in religions called
“ natural.” But, to prove that there actually was historical connection,
some other evidence is needed. Let us look, then, at some of the facts
that bear on this proposition.
And, first of all, we must consider the very important part which the
Roman Empire played in that great era of history. Christianity origi
nated in the age when the Roman Empire was at the height of its power
and splendor. The armies of the Cresars had penetrated to the Atlantic
on the West and to the verge of India on the East; Gaul and mountainous
Rhoetia had submitted to their power in the North, and the whole coast
line of Africa, from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Isthmus of Suez, in the
South. Before the irresistible might of these conquering legions, through
all this vast extent of territory, the partition-walls between races and nations
had disappeared: Jew and Greek, Asiatic and European, the swarthy
princes of Numidia and the rough barbarians of Gaul, all acknowledged
the law of Augustus Cmsar and of Rome. Now this vast political trans
formation could not have taken place without effecting to a greater or less
extent an intermixture of various peoples, and bringing into contact and
mutual acquaintance various philosophies and faiths. Not only were the
boundaries removed that separated these races and nations outwardly, but
the barriers that kept them apart in the inward relations of faith and
Sentiment were also thrown down; national pride and exclusiveness were
broken over; people of various religious opinions and modes of worship
came to be neighbors, learned to know each other better, and found that
they had common wants and aspirations: and so the way was laid over
which they should pass to a broader faith and a more comprehensive
religious fellowship. Jew and Greek, Persian barbarian and Alexan
drian philosopher, were brought together, ready to unite in a more
�60
universal spiritual kingdom. As described by the writer of the Book of
Acts, who shows the various elements of the primitive Christian Church,
“ Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia,
and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pampliylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers
of Rome, Jews and proselytes. Cretes and Arabians,” — all these, when
introduced to each other, discovered that under their various religious
“tongues” they were articulating substantially the same faith, and that
each, whatever the utterance, could detect his mother tongue. What was
more natural than that the different “ tongues ” should help mould each
other into the language of a new religion ? This is but a hint of the
religious transformation that must have been effected by the aid of the
Roman Empire. Through commerce and travel and emigration, and
union under one system of government, there thus came into contact with
each other the culture and philosophy of the Greeks, the theological and
spiritual mysticism of the Oriental nations, the theocratic and ethical ideas
of the Jews, and the practical organizing power of the Romans ; and it was
by the conjunction and interaction of these different ideas, principles, and
forces, that the conditions for the origin of Christianity were naturally
established.
Let us now, narrowing our survey, pass to two or three facts somewhat
more specific. Of these historical forces that were thus brought to
gether, the three that were the most positive in their religious character
were the Hebrew, the Greek, and the Persian. And of these three, of
course the Hebrew, with réference to Christianity, both geographically
and historically, was the central ancestral power. But it is to be noted
that before the Christian epoch Judaism had received tributaries of religious
thought both from the East and the West. As far back as the Babylonish
captivity, five centuries b.c., the Hebrew religion had been carried forci
bly into contact with the religion of Persia, and brought away from the
union some important modifications of thought and practice that remained
even after national independence was again secured. And in the century
just preceding the Christian era, through the migrations occasioned by the
spread of the Roman power, carrying Romans and Greeks eastward and
bringing the Asiatic nations westward, and especially by the gradual exile
and settlement of Jews in the cosmopolitan city of Alexandria, Judaism
was again brought into general contact with the Persian religion on the
one hand and with the Greek religion, particularly as represented in the
Platonic philosophy, on the other. F rom the East many religious specu
lations were imbibed by the Jews from the Cabalistic writings ; and on
the other hand there were learned Jews, like Aristobulus and Philo,
versed in Grecian lore, who were attempting by allegorical interpretations
�61
of the Old Testament to prove that Moses taught the Platonic philosophybefore Plato himself. Nor must it be forgotten that even in Jerusalem,
after it came under Roman power, this transformation of faith was going
on ; and at the period just before the advent of Jesus it was aided by no
less a character than king Herod the Great. We must not think of
Herod as merely the cruel, brutal tyrant that he is represented to have
been in the Sunday-school literature of Christendom, founded on a leoendary story of the New Testament. Whatever his crimes may have been,
he was yet a man of liberal tastes and culture for his time, and had the
laudable ambition to make Jerusalem another Alexandria, — a city hos
pitable to all learning and all faiths. He especially affected Grecian
culture, and made the Jewish capital free to Pagan forms of worship. So
that, though the story were true of his killing all the infants of Bethlehem
in order to destroy Christiarfity in its cradle, he was nevertheless, in spite
of himself, helping prepare the way for the successful advent of the new
faith.
We find, therefore, that just before the Christian era, and even in the
limits of Judaism itself, three distinct and representative forms of religious
faith had been brought into outward neighborhood, and were acting upon
and moulding each other in their inner character. And it is not difficult
to trace the contributions that came from each of these sources into the
Wly development of Christianity. Judaism contributed its ethical doc
trines somewhat enlarged and spiritualized from the law of Moses; also
it® monotheistic conception of the Divine Being, which, from the severe
Mosaic idea of Almighty Sovereignty, had been gradually assuming more
of.the character of paternal tenderness. We may find almost all the pre
cepts of the Sermon on the Mount and the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer
in Hillel and other Jewish rabbis before the time of Jesus. Judaism con
tributed, too, the Messianic idea, — a transformation of its old conception
of a theocratic government; and this was a very important contribution,
since this idea became the central mental instrumentality through which
Christianity was organized. Persia brought the doctrine of the resurrec
tion of the body ; of a day of judgment; of future rewards and retributions ;
of an irrepressible conflict in the universe between two essentially hostile
principles, good and evil, light and darkness ; of a Satanic power; and of
angels as messengers between heaven and earth. It contributed therefore
the scenic conditions of that primitive Christian faith, — that the world with
its evil was to come to an end by a grand catastrophe, and the Messianic
kingdom through the supervision of heavenly powers was to be miracu
lously established on a regenerated earth. From the spiritual philosophy
of Greece came the conception of the Divine Logos, or Eternal Word,
emerging from the Infinite to create the finite world and to incarnate itself
�62
in humanity; a conception from which sprang the dogma of the Trinity
and kindred metaphysical phases of Christian doctrine. It was a concep
tion too, which played a very important part in the early development of
Christianity, inasmuch as it transformed through a process of spiritual
idealization the Jewish idea of the Messiah, and so enabled that idea to
keep its historic course even after the primitive Christian form of it —
the expectation of the outward reappearance of Jesus—had necessarily
been disappointed. It seems clear that it was this transformation of the
Messianic conception through the influence of Greek philosophy (which
even began to show itself in Paul’s view of the Messiahship) that com
mended Christianity to the western Gentile mind, and furnished the
medium for its rapid development in the countries around the Mediter
ranean Sea.
Not to go into further details, we may say, -then, on this point, that we
find very important and central doctrines of three of the most prominent
faiths that were anterior to the Christian era — the three faiths that had
come outwardly into contact—reappearing in Christianity, fused into
one religious system.
And when we consider that these previous religions had severally
gathered into themselves the thought and culture of other religions, —■
that even ancient Egypt and India had probably poured their contribu
tions to the religious wealth of humanity into these streams, — the point
of their fusion seems a very central point in the past religious history of
mankind, and the Christian era by natural causes is invested with im
mense importance, and marks a most pregnant crisis in the development
of the human race. The spiritual blood of Moses, Zoroaster, and Plato,
had met by natural genealogy, and Christianity was the natural product.
Now what was the relation in which Jesus stood to this great era?
That he made the era can hardly be asserted in face of the historical
facts we have here noted. That he had nothing to do with shaping the
elements of the era into the new form of faith that took the name of
Christianity would seem to be equally violative of the record of history.
The elements were there, brought together by natural causes ; but a
fusing touch was needed for successfully combining them into a symmet
rical whole: a representative person was needed who should actually
exhibit the combination in his own doctrine and character, and so become
its exponent to the popular mind. This need was supplied by Jesus.
The requisite fusing touch was found in his spiritual genius, which happily
combined in itself the various elements that were seeking combination in
society. He came, therefore, as the natural prophet and spokesman of
the era, — came just as naturally as the era itself, and through the same
causes that produced the era; and was related to it in the same way as
�63
Luther was related to the Protestant Reformation, as Washington to the
American Political Revolution, as Charlemagne to the new departure
of government, learning, and civilization in Western Europe 'n the eighth
century: not that Jesus did the same kind of organizing work belonging
to a new era that was done by these personages. That was impossible
in the limit of the few months he was in person on the stage of
history. Paul was rather the representative organizer of Christianity;
yet Jesus had supplied the personal magnetic touch that set the elements
into the attitude of crystallization. His power was the power of a strong
personality, which put existing ideas and sentiments into motion, and fur
nished them a vital centre of organic attraction. And this he did by
presenting in his own thought and character so harmonious a union of the
various, if not indeed conflicting, religious elements that were floating in
chaotic mass around him. We may say, indeed, that he was himself the
product of Moses, Zoroaster, and Plato, — that they and the religious
faith their names represent were in a sense freshly incarnated in him;
not meaning, however, to imply that he came to his religious ideas merely
through a study of the records of their systems. Probably he did not
know that such persons as Zoroaster and Plato had ever lived. Had he
only reached his idea through books, he would have been simply a phi
losopher or scholar — not a prophet, not the reputed founder of a new
religion. The results of these systems of religious thought entered un
consciously as elements into the groundwork of his being. They were in
the very air which he breathed, in the very blood which mingled in his
veins. Very likely he had himself been educated as an Essene, and had
early imbibed the wisdom of that remarkable sect. So far he was a
product of the intellectual and religious forces which produced the age
in which he lived. But these forces were thoroughly assimilated to his
own mental and spiritual life. He did not regard them as something
apart from himself to be studied, — they were in him and of him, appear
ing in as fresh and original inspiration in him as ever in Plato or Zoroas
ter or Moses ; his personality certainly as much as theirs manifesting the
continued vitality of a fountain of life that was older and greater than
they, and that was still able to shape itself into new forms of conscious
ness, and to collect itself in new personal organisms, for ever increasing
demonstrations of its power. Thus Jesus exhibited, taking his teachings
and life together, a character that combined in fine symmetry the varied
elements of this new era of faith ; and he became its natural representative
and interpreter to the popular mind. The shortness of his actual career
and its tragic ending, added to his saintliness of character and to a quality
of mind and speech that was at the same time theologically radical and
spiritually mystical, rendered it all the more easy to idealize him, and left
�64
the elements of the new faith, after they had once found in him a fusing
centre of attraction, free to shape themselves according to their own or
ganic law. Christianity accordingly came into the world, not by a merely
outward junction of previous religious systems under the pressure of some
strong external force, but as a vital organic process of historical growth,
being in this respect like all other natural historic processes that have a
real vitality and power.
Now this union of so many vital elements of religious development,
drawn from such a wide variety of nation, culture, and belief, and left so
comparatively free from external pressure to crystallize into a new relig
ious system (the spread of which was indirectly aided from the first by
the Roman Empire), amply accounts for the large degree of catholicity
and universality which Christianity has possessed, and for its power of
adapting itself in its historical career to a great variety of national life
and of human condition. An especially important point in its favor was
the exceptional fact that it organically united two race-faiths which had
long lived apart, the Semitic and the Aryan, deriving from the union of
these two independent stocks of religious sentiment a strength greater
than either had shown alone. Christianity has had a capacity for self
development and has attained a power beyond that of any other religion,
because it absorbed into itself the vital force of the religious thought of
two great races as well as of three prominent and powerful faiths of the
ancient world.
But, does it therefore follow that Christianity is absolutely universal
and catholic? Is it unlike the religions before it in having no limita
tions ? Will it have power to adapt itself to all times, and to all kinds
and classes of men, and so finally absorb all other religions, and all na
tions and civilizations, into itself, and become the universal, perpetual
religion of mankind ? I would answer these questions with all reverence,
yet with all plainness, anxious only to seek and serve the truth. It seems
to me, then, clear that Christianity, both in its origin and in its history, has
limitations; and these limitations were just as natural to it, and just as
necessary in order to meet the conditions of the age, as were its elements
of liberality and comprehensiveness. Not to speak of certain sentiments
and dogmas which were attached to it in its earliest phases, — such as
belief in demonic possession, in the second coming of Jesus, in the
speedy end of the world, and in eternal punishment, which reason can
hardly accept now, but which it may be claimed were not absolutely es
sential to the religion then; not to speak of some moral imperfections
which it might not be difficult to point out even in the pure and lofty
character of Jesus, but which yet might not have made it impossible for
him to have taught the principles of absolute religion, — there was at least
�ou6 feature of limitation which was actually essential to the very birth
0'f Christianity as a historical religion, and which has always remained as
Ott® of the most central principles of its existence. This is the claim of
Jesus to be the Messiah, and the recognition of him as such. Jesus
began his mission from a Jewish stand-point and with Jewish views ; and,
whatever may have been his own conception of his mission, the Messianic
idea certainly furnished the instrumentality, and, it would seem, the only
one possible at the time, for his obtaining any foothold in his nation. The
Messianic hope presented the immediate motive which concentrated and
organized the various religious elements of the time into a church. It
was necessary in that age that the new faith should appear in this con
crete shape. Yet so far did this Messianic claim limit Jesus’ work that
it seems extremely probable that Christianity would have been only a
reformed Jewish sect, had not Paul come, bringing a larger element from
the Hellenistic thought and culture, and opened the door of the Messianic
Kingdom to the Gentile world. Paul with his broad mission to the Gen
tiles, — a “ mystery ” of the new faith which the more primitive disciples
could scarcely comprehend, — and with his vigorous genius for religious
propagandism, which well matched and followed the genius of Rome for
^political propagandism, saved Christianity from one of the narrow effects
of the limitation inherent in the Jewish Messianic idea.
Still, the essential feature of that idea remained, — was in some respects
even aggravated by this early adaptation of Christianity to the Gentile
nations. For the essential feature of that idea was, that Jesus, by right
of his office, could claim allegiance as a specially commissioned represen
tative of God. He was King and Lord of the Messianic realm. And
the effect of enlarging and spiritualizing the realm was not to remove
Jesus from this position, but rather to magnify and elevate his office still
more, until he was idealized into a God. Through the influence of the
Greek philosophy, the Messianic idea, as we have seen, was very
thoroughly transformed, taking the shape of the Divine Incarnation; yet
in some shape it remained as the vitalizing principle of the Christian
Church; and, upon the confession that Jesus was the Christ, Christianity
was organized and has held its career to this day as a specific religion.
Now this is a limitation in its central organizing principle which pre
vents Christianity from being the universal and absolute religion, and
incapacitates it from adapting itself to all times and all men. Science,
scholarship, historical investigation, and a rational interpretation of history
are all undermining the idea that Jesus, however much he has been ele
vated and worshipped by the Christian Church, was more than a man, or
that he had any other authority than that which belongs to all sincere and
impressive utterance of great truths, or any other office than that of the
�66
propbet and reformer. The very conception of Messiahship, as it has
been held by both Jew and Christian, modern rational thought condemns.
And there are signs that Christianity has now reached, because of the very
limitation of this conception, the limit of its longitudinal development, so
to speak, in human history. It may continue to spread somewhat further
sidewise, gaining adherents from people who are on a relatively lower
level of thought than are its most enlightened devotees; though the pros
pect is not very encouraging for it even in that direction. But it seems
impossible that it should adapt itself any further to human progress, and
still remain Christianity. In the most liberal sects already the “ Chris
tian confession ” has been rationalized to the utmost it will bear, and the
authority of Jesus reduced to the minimum quantity that is consistent
with any conception of his official or supernatural position. One step fur
ther in the same direction, and he is seen to stand in the line of natural
humanity, with no other authority than that spiritual wisdom “ which
in all ages, entering into holy souls, maketh them friends of God and
prophets.” We have come to the age when it is beginning to be seen that
there must be democracy in religion. Free, rational, thinking men cannot
much longer accept any other authority than that which has its seat in
their own souls, and cannot give sincere allegiance to any sovereignty less
than that which expresses itself in the totality of Nature’s laws and the
human consciousness.
And it does not help the matter for Christianity to declare that Jesus is
not King and Lord in any such sense as having absolute authority, but
that he is only a great moral and religious leader, who by natural ways
has come into the position of providential spiritual headship to the
human race, — an example and ideal for all future time. For as soon as
we place him in the line of humanity, and affirm the natural origin and
development of Christianity, we make it irrational and preposterous to
suppose that he, a simple man, has the place of headship to the whole
human race, or has furnished a religious system to man which is absolutely
perfect and unchangeable. No more irrational would it be to say of
Beethoven or Homer or Shakspeare, because of their great superiority
to others in their respective arts, that they have therefore sounded the
ultimate depths of music or poetry or the drama, and given not only speci
mens, but entire systems of their arts, which must for ever stand as the
goal of all human attainment. There is no a priori impossibility, nor
very great improbability, that a man should at some time have appeared,
or should now appear, who, with reference to his own time, should rise to
such relative perfection in knowledge and character as to manifest no
defect, compared with the very highest »contemporary standard. But to
say that any finite human mind existing in Judeea two thousand years ago,
�67
or existing in the most favorable spot on the earth in this nineteenth cen
tury, could come by entirely natural processes to the possession of absolute
perfection in spiritual wisdom and character, so as to set a standard for
humanity never to be surpassed in all the ages, is certainly a very wild
belief. If Jesus had been God, then he might have established the uni
versal and absolute religion. Being man, he takes his place among the
workers for God; and his work, however great and enduring in its power,
cannot have anticipated and supplied the wants of all mankind for all after
time.
Christianity has rendered, and is still rendering, inestimable service to
®an. So all the specific religions have been useful in their time and
place. They all have preserved some truth, and have satisfied some
human want. But humanity is now beginning to cry out for the sub
stance of religion, and to care little for the system. The special systems
have had their day, and mainly done their work. They have all been
useful, but “received not the promise; God having provided some better
thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” In other
words, in the natural development of religious ideas the specific religions
must shed their antagonistic claims to supernatural authority, and put off
their mutually excluding special features of dogma and ceremony, in
order that Religion itself may mature its finer elements of thought and
character, and that men from all countries and faiths may be drawn to
gether in a free, broad fellowship, on the basis of the common allegiance
of the human faculties to the law of truth and right.
And the signs are not few that the era for this new order of spiritual
fellowship is now opening. And — may I not add? — at the dawn of this
era stands the Free Religious Association, ready to voice its spirit, confi
dent with the expectancy of great hopes ; its white banner modestly raised,
yet high enough to catch the light of the new morning that is breaking
over the world, with fresh promise of peace and good-will to men.
After Mr. Potter had finished his Essay, Mr. Frothingham
Baid that in the absence of Dr. Wise it might not be out of place
to give a brief report of what his lecture would have been if they
could have listened to it.
It was his fortune to have heard it when it was delivered by Dr. Wise
in New York ; and Dr. Wise had said to him that he gave the study of
twenty years to this question of the origin of Christianity, a book upon
which subject he published two or three years ago. The sources of his
information were largely exclusive of the New Testament. His position
was in substance this : He did not speak as if he represented the view of the
Jewish Church, but his own view as a historical student, and as a Hebrew.
�68
In the first place, he, of course, discarded all the Christian theology in
regard to Jesus, or what is commonly called Christianity. He dismissed
altogether the account of the Immaculate Conception, and assumed that
Jesus was a mere man, and all the stories of miracle as unproven. But he
contended for the historical being of Jesus as a person who actually ex
isted, insisting upon it that there was as much reason to believe in his
existence as there was to believe in the existence of any other historical
person who lived so long ago. In regard to his position, he paid the very
highest tribute to the moral grandeur of the character of Jesus. There
was a deep and solemn earnestness in Dr. Wise’s tone as he spoke upon
the life and purposes of Jesus. He believed that Jesus was tried and
condemned as an insurrectionist against the Roman power, the Jews who
believed in him being too weak to take his side, and the Jews who did
not believe in him rather favoring his execution because it secured their
position. Dr. Wise went on to say that the story of the resurrection of
Jesus had its source in the imagination of the Apostles. He denied that
Jesus predicted his own resurrection, or that he ever did rise. His dis
ciples, in their own simple-hearted enthusiasm, gathering about themselves
such legend and tradition, proceeded to found their own religion. But the
power that founded Christianity, as we call it, was in the soul of St. Paul;
and it was St. Paul who was the creator of the Christian Church. With
that Jesus had nothing to do. He was a breath ; he was an inspired
heart; he was as warm, devoted a soul as ever lived; but with the sub
sequent errors, traditions, and legends that gathered about his name, he
had nothing to do, and his noble soul would have been distressed could he
have known that such things should have been said about him, and have
been built upon his work.
Lucretia Mott then took up the subject in an address of considerable
length. She had no doubt that great good was resulting from the free dis
cussion of the character of Jesus, and other religious topics. What was
called natural religion was revealed religion, and inspired, as she thought,
in the same way as were the great utterances of Christianity. Men were
so superstitious, so prone to believe what was presented to them by their
church or creed, that they ought to follow Jesus more in his non-conform
ity. Those who most delighted to honor the name of Jesus had yet to
learn the nobleness of his character, which led him to live up to and act
out his highest convictions, though so opposed to the traditions of his time.
She alluded to the observance of the Sabbath as springing more from a
superstitious than a rational motive, and as certainly not resting on the
command or example of Jesus. Jesus claimed very little for himself, but
was ever ready to bring in the name of the truth, saying that it was the
truth that made men free. She held that scepticism was a religious duty,
*
�69
awl that men should question their theology, and doubt more, in order that
they might believe more. She would ask those who were so satisfied to
regt in the name of Jesus, why they put so much faith in the name with
out following him in his works, and even in the “ greater works ” which
he predicted ? Paul, she admitted, was too much of a theologian for her;
tat she knew of no warrant that required her to take St. Paul as an
authority. She thought, however, there had been of late great advance
in liberality even among the strictest sects, and gave some interesting
reminiscences of this kind of progress. Her remarks were closed by an
earnest appeal for more of practical simplicity and sincerity in the daily
Conduct of life. She protested especially against the prevailing extrava
gances in dress and housekeeping, and said that she mourned for the
future of the marriage institution and of society, unless plainer and less
COStly habits of living could be adopted.
Mr. D. A. Wasson wanted to say a few words with reference to the
position taken by his esteemed friend Colonel Higginson, who, if he un
derstood him rightly, was ready, if need be, to dispense with a God, say
ing that if we lost God we still had ourselves. He doubted that. If God
be, then he is the life of ourselves, and we ourselves not men unless this
universe is divine. If it be bigotry to desire to know that this universe
is penetrated with the light of a creative mind, and warmed with the
divine blood of a central heart; if it be bigotry to feel a concern for the
troth that there is a reality above us which we may climb to, as well as a
reality below us on which we may tread, then he wished to be put down
a bigot. No man had the life of a man but in the truth of ideas. As
to the subject of the afternoon, he so fully accepted the statement that
Christianity was founded on the human soul that he had put the question
behind him, and thought they should make haste to arrive at another
point. He did not want an extract from all the religions of the world as
a sort of universal religion. He tried to get at the root of every religion,
and he came to Christianity in the same spirit, because he was no longer
'jealous of other religions. He thought that Christianity should be judged
O a whole, and not simply as it was left by Jesus. It was not the slight
est objection to Christianity that it got something from Chrysostom and
St Augustine, and is getting something to this day. He had no doubt
that Jesus started a new chemistry ; that he launched ideas that crystal
lized anew, and were built up into fresh organic life, and that Christianity
is the result of that building. He had no desire to make dogma, but he
wanted the spirit of appreciation that was ready to take up the ideas of
the human soul as they have got their expression in that great constructive
fact of human history that was called Christianity.
Mr. John L. Russell, of Salem, understood Mr. Higginson’s argu*
�70
ment to be, that the life that now is is so magnificent and so replete with
every thing that is glorious, every thing that thé human intellect and
human affections can possibly conceive of, that, if it was proved there was
nothing but this life, it ought to suffice. He wanted to insist also upon
the point that the nineteenth century is not indebted to Christianity for
its improvements. What is called the Christian civilization of this era
rested, in his opinion, upon the modern awakening of science ; and yet
almost every day in pulpit and press it was claimed that we were in
debted to the Christian religion for the benefits of modern civilization.
It seemed to him rather that Christianity was being moulded and trans
formed by science.
Mr. Wasson said a few words more in regard to his position, and read
a sentence or two, to which his attention had been called, from the Report
of the Executive Committee, showing that his criticism with regard to
forming a new religion by mechanical combination of extracts of old reli
gions could not fairly apply to any opinions that had been expressed by
this Association.
Mr. Dean Clarke followed, speaking not so much on the specific
topic of the Essay, as on the position and work of the Association in gen
eral, in the meetings of which, he said, he felt very much at home. He
was in conviction a Spiritualist, and for that reason he liked this broad,
free platform, representing religious reform and progress.
Rabbi Guinzbitrg spoke a few words in the same strain from his
stand-point of the Jewish Church, — said l.e had been greatly interested
in the Essays and discussions of the day, and wanted it understood that
he was a member of the Association.
Adjourned till 7.30 p.m.
EVENING
SESSION.
The Convention reassembled according to adjournment. The
Chair was taken by John T. Sargent, one of the Vice-Presidents ;
and the President, Mr. Frothingham, delivered the following
essay.
ESSAY BY 0. B. FROTHINGHAM.
Superstition and Dogmatism.
The Committee appointed to arrange the topics for discussion at this
Convention set apart this evening for talk on the existing power of Dog
matism and Superstition, and requested me to introduce it by an Essay
�that should bring the matter fairly before the audience. In performing
this duty, I shall aim to be simple and direct. It is, however, impossi
ble to speak of the existing power of superstition without speaking of
Superstition itself. It has a long lineage, and is always the same thing.
Its power is dynamic : its malignity is in its quality, not in its mass. But its
mass is fearful ; for it is bounded only by the realm of ignorance,
stupidity, and credulity.
Is it proper, some will ask, to speak of an existing power of supersti
tion ? Is not superstition a thing that existed once, or exists elsewhere?
It is a popular delusion that superstition has disappeared ; or, if not, that
it has become harmless. This is the superstition of the superstitions.
The insane think all insane but themselves. Everybody hates superstition,
and everybody hugs it. It is the universal horror and the universal pet, —
the confessed foe of religion, and the as cordially clutched guardian of it.
It is cursed and caressed by the same devotees. The disease is a mild form
of rheumatism in our case, but gout in our neighbors. It is the “ fire water ”
which is ruining the man over the way, but which we take in very small
quantities for the stomach’s sake,—our meat, his poison. Our super
stition should not be called superstition. Would you find the genuine
article, you must go to the “ little church round the corner.” You call
at the “ little church round the corner,” and the well-bred rector refers
you to the big cathedral on the square. You hasten thither, and are
told with lofty disdain that you have come to the wrong place. The
horror you look for is in a synagogue, on the side street. Your search
is like the search for the bosom sin. The Romanist enlarges on the
superstitions of the Pagans. The Protestant waxes hot, as he d \ cribes
the superstitions of the Romanists. The Unitarian pours scorn on the
superstition of the Protestant. The Theist fastens the charge on the
Unitarian. The Positivist delares that the Theist’s belief in a personal
God holds the very soul of superstition. By general consent, it is admit
ted that the Positivist has cleared himself from the aspersion ; and, by
general consent, it is agreed that the Positivist is an unhappy creature,
who has got rid of his devils indeed, but at the expense of getting rid of
his angels.
The inference would be, then, that Superstition is commensurate with
Supernaturalism. Not quite. Supernaturalism thinks of a Being who
comprehends, overawes, presides over the natural universe, or a principle
that is not exhausted by an organic universe. Superstition describes this
Being as directly interfering as ruler and director. The finest minds may
point to the Supernatural ; only the coarser are infested with Supersti
tion. It is a familiar saying, that Ignorance is the mother of Superstition.
It would be hard to say that Ignorance was the mother of Supernaturalism.
�72
No one by searching, perhaps, can find out God. But very little search
ing suffices to reveal that God is not whimsical or capricious like ourselve*.
at is the whole history of the intellectual progress of the
world but one long struggle of the intellect of man to emancipate itself
from the deceptions of Nature ? Millions of prayers have been vainly
breathed to what we now know were inexorable laws. Only after ages
of toil did the mind of man emancipate itself from those deadly errors, the
deceptive appearances of Nature, to which the long infancy of Humanity
is universally doomed.” (Lecky’s Morals, i. 56.) It used to be thought
that Africa was a land of monsters, serpents large enough to stop ar
mies, and men without heads; that golden apples grew in Spain ; that
giants and enchantresses lived in Sicily; that a cave on the shore of the
Black Sea was the mouth of hell. The Roman legions and the travelling
merchants made these phantoms vanish. The Australians have an evil
demon named Koin, who tries to strangle them in their sleep. He never
comes, except when they have been gorging themselves with food. He is
the nightmare of an overloaded stomach. If you want to reach the heart
of this subject without pains, open the first volume of Mr. Buckle’s
“History of Civilization” at the 269th page, and you will find matter
for profound reflection. There is the whole case in a nutshell. There is
the clear statement, fortified by hosts of references and illustrated by
facts in every field, that Superstition is simply the child of Ignorance.
There you will read that so simple a process as the draining of marshy
land cleared the brains of Englishmen of their notions of a special provi
dence in chills and fever, while the same Englishmen pray for wet or dry
weather because they have not discovered the laws that control the fall of
rain. The discovery of those laws will still further limit the domain of
the Supernatural.
A vast area of mind was purged of superstition by the science
which discovered the law of the eclipse. An Athenian general, Nikias,
fearing to risk a battle at the time of a lunar eclipse, allowed him
self and his army of forty thousand men to be either slain or taken pris
oners. In the tenth century an entire army suddenly became demoralized,
and was dissipated, by an eclipse of the sun. I am acquainted with
persons who will on no account see the new moon over the left shoulder;
and a very elegant woman calmly told me, the other day, that her mis
fortunes were due to her having been born under an evil star. She knew
some things better than she knew Astronomy.
Religion is the last hiding-place of Superstition, for it is the last region
that Science invades. Into the world of imagination, sentiment, feeling,
into the world of pure speculation, of awe, wonder, and mystery, knowl
edge penetrates slowly. There the chemist, the naturalist, the astron
�73
omer, the meteorologist, the physicist, are at fault. The physiologist is
just beginning to probe the secrets of the nervous organization, and to dis
turb the bats we thought were spirits. How Draper and Maudesley make
them fly! What simple and sufficient answers to the questions of the
superstitious are elicited by the medical cross-questioning of the brain!
How sweetly the Divine Order comes in and occupies the wild territory
which fancy had peopled with spirits ! How magnificent the avenues of Law,
that stretch away into the invisible regions that had once been the dwelling
places and play-grounds of the wilful gods ! Special providences become
general, and general providences move with shut eyelids. Gods merge
in God, and God loses individuality and fades away into spacelessness
until conscious Law is King of kings. We must of course discriminate.
Supernaturalism implies reliance on supernatural powers, not belief in
supernatural things. Believe as you will about heaven and hell, imps and
angels, so long as you expect from them neither help nor harm you may
be irrational, but you are not superstitious. Religion finds it hard to dis
card the word supernatural, but the rational Theist has no difficulty in
clearing his mind of every vestige of superstition. The God he worships
rules, but never interferes; presides, but never intrudes ; enacts laws, but
never breaks them. Theodore Parker was an immense believer in God
and immortality; but the charge of superstition could no more be fixed on
him than on Humboldt.
To most people, the spiritual world is still the abode of spectres.' If
you want
pies of pure superstition, you must go to Religion. There
are people
will not start an enterprise on Friday, but we laugh at
them. There are people who will give up a journey if a black cat crosses
their path, but they laugh grimly at themselves. Thousands of people
rejoice in their fear to travel on Sunday. Thousands think their journey
will be more prosperous, if before starting they utter a prayer.
Six hundred years ago, St. Francis d’Assisi, kneeling in his little
chapel, had a vision. The Virgin and her Son appeared to him, thanked
him for his great services to the church, and begged him to mention any
small favor they could render him as a token of their gratitude. Francis,
bowed down by the condescension and oppressed with humbleness, merely
asked that all who, from that time forward, should confess and partake of
the Mass in that particular chapel, might have all their sins forgiven.
The request, though too insignificant to be spoken of, was granted. But
to make it more worthy of such a petitioner and such a giver, the trifling
privilege was extended to the churches of the Franciscan order through
out the world. On a day in last August the Church of St. Francis, in
New York, was crowded from morning till night with pious souls who
were anxious to get a few centuries of their allotted purgatory wiped off.
10
�74
Archbishop Manning, who is spoken of as a promising candidate for
the papacy, if the present incumbent ever leaves it, gravely justifies the
practice of trading in celestial real estate, which so shocked Wycliffe and
Huss, and at length outraged Europe into Protestantism.
The rite of Baptism shows a pure case of superstition. The Indian
“ medicine man ” muttered a formula over a gourd filled with water from
a neighboring fountain, and sprinkled it on his sick patient. The Peru
vian, after confessing his sin, bathed in the nearest running stream, and
said: “ O thou river! receive the sins I have this day confessed unto
the sun; carry them down to the sea, and let them never more appear.”
The Aztecs began their order of baptism thus: “ O child! receive the
water of the Lord of the world, which is our life; it is to wash and to
purify; may these drops remove the sin which was given to thee before
the creation of the world,” — and in conclusion the priest said: “ Now
he is born anew and liveth anew, now is he purified and cleansed, now
our mother the water again bringeth him into the world.” When the
Romish priests saw the ceremony, they thought the old Enemy had been
at work, and crossed themselves with holy water more devoutly than
ever.
The Episcopal priest, before applying the water, prays that God will
“ grant to the child that thing which by nature he cannot have,” will
“ wash him and sanctify him with the Holy Ghost; ” and, after applying
the water, declares the child to be regenerate. Was ever Pagan suckled
in a more fantastical creed than this ? When the superstition vanishes
from the rite, and it becomes a simple observance of sentiment, nobody
cares about it.
The Communion is another instance of unmitigated superstition. See
that morsel of bread. It was ripened in the field, harvested, ground,
kneaded, baked in an oven, — touch it, taste it, it is bread, and nothing
more. Consider this wine in the goblet. It was grown in a vineyard,
imported in a vessel, bought at a grocer’s shop. It differs from ordinary
wine only in not being so good. But, on the utterance of certain words
in a religious service, the substance is transformed. What seems bread
becomes God’s body. What seems wine becomes God’s blood. The
mouthful and the sip pass the Lord of the world into the soul through the
gateway of the lips. The Divine Intervention is pledged to come in at
every utterance of the charmed words, and pack the living Godhead into
a thin wafer that would not stay the hunger of a child. The natural
mind calls this blasphemous nonsense. The supernatural mind calls it
divine mystery.
The English Book of Common Prayer affirms that “ the body and
blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful
�75
in the Lord’s Supper.” “ Grant us,” the priest implores,—“grant us
so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son, and to drink his blood, that our
sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed
through his most precious blood.” When Zwingli took out the poison by
declaring that the Supper was simply a memorial observance, it dropped
into disuse. Without the superstition, it was nothing. Take away the
miracle, and you take away the meaning. Yet a leading Unitarian divine
declares that instituted Christianity cannot survive the neglect of the
Communion !
Protestants can boast of superstitions every whit as pure as those of
Romanism. “ Zion’s Herald ” stands by the statement that the earth will
explode sooner than the truth that earthquakes and other natural con
vulsions are caused by human sin. The Presbyterians in Philadelphia
lately put on record their conviction that the hideous woes that afflict
France are a doom passed on the nation by the Protestant God to pay
for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. Such nonsense is the despair of
history and the confusion of reason. The vulgar idea of prayer is satu
rated with superstition. “Prayer,” says an “Orthodox” divine, “is the
rope up in the belfry: we pull it, and it rings the bell in heaven.” Says
another: “ Jesus, the high treasurer in heaven, knows every letter of his
Father’s handwriting, and can never be imposed upon by any forged note.
He will always honor his Father’s bills.” Said another dealer in pious
imagery: “ When a pump is frequently used, the water pours out at the
first stroke, because it is high. But if the pump has not been used for
a long time, the water gets low, and you must pump a long while to get
it. So with prayer.” Here is natural superstition for you 1 Bell-ropes,
pump-handles, and promises to pay on demand! The ropes rattle, the
pumps suck, the promises to pay wait for indorsement. To the spiritually
minded this rusty machinery is disgusting. But finer machinery will still
be machinery. Substitute for the bell-rope the sigh or the tear, for the
pump-handle meditation, for the promissory note the temper of trust, —
the difficulty still remains. Mechanism is mechanism, whether it be the
turning of a mill, or the tapping of a telegraph wire. It is as rational to
pray for rain as for righteousness; for a favoring gale to speed your ship
as for a breath of the Holy Spirit to revive your soul. It is equally
superstitious to pray for life, and to pray for a willingness to lay life
down. The superstition lasts so long as the notion lasts that we can
have any gift for the asking; that we can obtain any single good thing
without conforming to the vital conditions ; that wishing, however earnest,
can dispense with willing; that the rule, “ If a man will not work, neither
shall he eat,” may, under any circumstances, be suspended ; that any part
of creation, any realm of being, is uncontrolled by law. Superstition
�76
disappears when the conviction comes in that we must earn what we
would have. • Jeremy Taylor assigns so many conditions of acceptable
prayer, that the ceremony of praying may be omitted. The work is done
before the supplication begins. If to be successful, prayer must be intelli
gent, sincere, earnest, humble ; if all good desires must precede it, and all
sweet tempers and noble dispositions must accompany it, and the grand
est resolutions must fortify it, — in other words, if every thing you pray
for must be presupposed before you pray, why pray ? The time is coming
when men will not pray for natural or spiritual gifts ; when it will be
seen that all such prayers have been breathed in vain to inexorable laws.
Read John Weiss’s chapter on “ False and True Praying,” in his new
book on “ American Religion ; ” shame yourselves by the reading out of
the superstition of praying for things which, if you really desire, you will
earn; and, by studying that and other chapters, educate yourselves into
the clearest ideas about rational religion that have ever been printed.
While present views of Providence last, Christians cannot look down on
Pagans. The augurs and soothsayers are their brothers. While the
present idolatry of the Bible lasts, Christians cannot look intelligent
heathens in the face. “ See that Christian missionary,” said a Hindu to
his companion, — “ see that Christian missionary carrying his god under
his arm.” There is a pure fetich: a book of charms ; a miracle-working
product of the printing-press. The Bible Society turns it out by the
hundred thousand copies,—always in one volume; always broken up in
chapters and verses; no spurious parts omitted; no apocryphal part put
in; no mistranslating corrected; no dark texts explained; no intelligent
classification of books allowed ; no vowel points changed. That the
volume should be understood is not essential. It is not necessary even
that it should be read. It must be distributed and possessed. It is
scattered among the heathen by shiploads; it is left at the doors of people
who cannot read ; there is a copy in every room of your hotel; the saloon
of every steamboat has one or more ; the traveller puts it in his trunk as
a talisman; the soldier puts it in his breast-pocket to ward off the bullet,
or stay the bayonet thrust (which it sometimes does), the undisturbed
presence of the book in the pocket being thought sufficient to insure its
virtue. To read a chapter every morning, without asking what it means,
will keep off the devils for the day. Devout people open it at random,
and find a divine oracle in the text that first meets the eye. If a child
flings the book down and kicks it, the resources of parental discipline are
inadequate to the emergency, and the minister must be called in to pre
scribe for th6 offence. The proposition to translate the volume into plain
English is repelled; and the idea of reading the volume as one reads
other books is scouted with horror. “ Have you any request to make,
�77
Tommy ? ” said a pastor to a little boy who was sick. “ Yes : when I
am buried, please put my little Testament in the coffin with me. I am
a very little boy, and I am afraid Jesus will forget me. But I will reach
up my New Testament to him, and then he will receive me.”
Who shall do justice to the superstitions that infest the Sabbatarian
mind ? Here is one day in seven that is not to be reckoned in the ordi
nary calendar: it is an intruder in the astronomical universe. It has no
place in the schedule of time; history has to jump over it. The solar
system has orders to pass it by. It takes no celestial observations.
Another sun shines for it; other winds blow for it; other elements work
for it ; the laws of hydrostatics and pneumatics and gravitation are sus
pended on that day. They are the ministers of God, and tradition says
that on this day God was asleep. On that sacred day the obedient sea,
converted from its secular habits, swallows up not the unskilful sailor, but
the worldly absentee from church. The orthodox winds upset not the
inexpert who know not how to manage their sail, but the irreverent
who do not love the Sunday school. If the sportsman is killed on Sunday
by his own gun, it is not because he is a careless sportsman, but because
he was not reading his Bible. If a carriage breaks down on Sunday, it
h not the fault of the roads or of the axle; the laws of mechanics are
of no account on Sunday: that the word of Scripture might not be
broken, the wheel gave way. The natural forces are all orthodox on
one day in the week. The sea becomes “evangelical.” The sun dis
penses the gospel, and is literally a sun of righteousness. The winds
obey the behest of the Holy Ghost. The beasts prophesy. The trees
rf the field are strict Sabbatarians. Nature studies the Bible, and
goes by the letter of it; she guards the slumbers of God. The “ New
Cyclopedia of Illustrations,” a work introduced to the public by no
less a person than Dr. Stephen H. Tyng, of New York, quotes approv
ingly an Eastern legend to the effect that, while Solomon was on his way
to visit the Queen of Sheba, he came to a valley in which dwelt a peculiar
tribe of monkeys ; on inquiring into their history, he learned that they
were the posterity of a colony of Jews, who by habitual profanation of
the Sabbath had degenerated into apes.
Dogmatism is superstition of opinion. A dogma is an opinion with a
magical attachment. It is a medicated bullet. The dogma is a fetich. The
less you understand it, the diviner it is. Its mysteriousness is its merit.
The credo quia absurdam is the motto of the dogmatist. The formula
is a charm, a philactery to be worn about the neck, or on the arm, or upon
the forehead. Emblazon it on the church, and Christ will dwell there.
Set it over the gates of your college, and God will bless the institution.
Let the Lyceum Committee write it upon the wall of their council room,
�80
This great ignorance, illusion of evil, the Free Religious Association
primarily aims to dethrone. Its motto is not faith, but knowledge. It
seeks to know. It believes in knowing. The definition of truth it does
*
not attempt. The love of truth it would fain promote. It would eman
cipate the mind from the tyranny of the supernatural, from the bonds of
dogmatism, from the despotism of idolatry and superstition. In doing this,
it is actuated by the sincerest of aims. It is animated by a pure human
regard.
I. In the first place, we charge Superstition with ruinous waste of
means. The Egyptians could not eat their onions because they had made
gods of them. The Jews could not improve their Sabbath because they
had consecrated it. The Christians are unable to make rational use of
their Bible because they deem it the “ word of God,” too holy to read
intelligently. It is sacred to stupidity. The antiquarian, the archae
ologist, the historian, the philosopher, the moralist, look at it with long
ing eyes, but their touch would profane it. It is a buried treasure
which is defended by magical charms. Literature has no claim upon it.
It is too hallowed to be the property of the human mind. It is forbidden
to the vulgar to know its genuine thoughts. A seventh part of all the
time there is having been given to the Lord, men may not avail themselves
of it for their human purposes. It must be devoted to doing nothing. To
open libraries on that day or lecture-rooms to give instruction in science,
history, mechanics, literature, art, to entertain the tired people with music,
to facilitate easy journeys into the country, to make galleries and gym
nasiums and gardens accessible to the famishing multitude, would be an
affront to the majesty of Heaven, would disturb the slumbers of the god.
The Communion Supper feeds nobody either with, food or sympathy,
because it is a “ holy ordinance.” In order that the sacrament may be
observed, the occasion is lost. The human qualities of Jesus cannot be
appropriated, — cannot even be appreciated, — the virtue in him being im
puted to his mythological character. In Naples, one sees hanging upon
the walls of shrine and chapel implements and weapons, fishing lines and
nets, through which poor people have been saved from danger, or have
met signal good fortune. The grateful owners devoted them to the Virgin,
and had to buy new ones. Being once consecrated, they could not be
used. This tool-worship is very expensive to poor people, though the tools
be nothing but rusty knives, a skein of twine, or an old oar. Who shall
compute the cost of it, when the sanctified and wasted tools are books that
hold the literature of a nation ; rare persons, the like of whom are not
born more than once in a thousand years ; and fifty-two golden days
in every twelvemonth, each composed of precious and irrecoverable
hours ?
�81
II. The second charge we make against Superstition is, that it demoral
izes and degrades mankind. Old Burton says; “The part affected by
superstition is the brain, heart, will,^understanding, soul itself, and all the
faculties of it; all is mad and dotes.” “Death takes away life,” says
Pliny, “ but not superstition. No torture is like it, none so continuous,
so general, so violent, so destructive.” “ The visionary,” says Plutarch,
“ hath ne’er a world at all; for he can neither use his reason when awake,
nor be free from his fears when asleep. His reason is always asleep, and
his fears are always awake.” “ When the atheist falls sick, he reckons
up his surfeits and debauches, .his 'excessive labors or unaccustomed
changes of airs or climates. But the fanciful superstitionist accounts
every little distemper in his body or decay in his estate, the death of his
children, crosses, and disappointments, as the immediate strokes of God.
If he be sick, he thrusts away the physician; if he be in grief, he shuts
out the philosopher.” The soul of superstition is fear of the unseen
powers, dread of the unknown. It infects with cowardice. Why are
men afraid of inquiry? Why do they cower under creeds they dis
believe ? Why do they sit dumb in presence of calamity ? Why do
they submit to strokes of fortune they might parry, and accept situations
they might escape from ? Why the backwardness to explore Nature ?
Why the horror of new opinions ? Men snuggle under their prejudices
as children under their blankets, peopling the dark with phantoms. We
ar® not half the men we ought to be. We will not do our own work,
from the superstitious hope that God will do it for us. We will- not
push our own way, from the superstitious fear that we may cross God’s
path. Superstition, instead of supplementing man, oppresses him ; instead
of supplying more strength when his natural strength is exhausted, it
drains him of his natural strength.
Superstition in the Roman Empire must have been a bitter thing, when
poets loathed it as the destruction of all beauty; when moralists de
nounced it as the subverter of all goodness; when philosophers deplored
its malignant influence on the rational nature; when a man like Plutarch
branded it as the worst calumny against the Deity, as more pernicious
than atheism, as being, in a word, essential atheism with cowardice super
added ; when thinking people hailed with rapture the materialism of
Epicurus, which at least gave them promise of quiet and unbroken sleep
in their graves. It took away their gods, and that was the greatest boon
that could be conferred.
Superstition must have been a frightful curse in Italy, when the monk
Savonarola dared to assail it in the person of the Pope of Rome. It must
have been a ruinous woe in Bohemia, when John Huss poured out his
torrents of eloquent indignation upon it; when his scholar, Jerome Faul11
�82
fish, burned the papal bull under the gallows ;* when the people rose,
insulted the priests, stormed the town-house, and defied the authority of
the Church. It must have been a oorroding disease in Germany, when
Martin Luther bore his witness against the doctrine of indulgences, and
at the risk of his life confronted the ancient system under which he
was educated with the pure text of the Word.
The flashes of lightning that Theodore Parker drew from the cloudy
masses of faith, and that have not ceased to blaze yet, reveal the temper
of superstition in America, — a temper as bitter, though not as powerful,
as in Greece and Rome. These great souls were struggling to emancipate
men from their bondage to the supernatural, to get breathing room for the
mind, to secure freeholds for thought and will, to gain the right of eminent
domain for the human faculties in every sphere of natural activity, to
make them, so far as the light of the generation permitted, kings and
priests to themselves. They could not execute their work perfectly,
because they could not see it perfectly. We see it better than they did.
Our successors will see it better than we do. The time will come when
Nature will assert her claim to the whole dominion of the supernatural;
and then, when the half-gods go, the gods will arrive.
That Superstition calumniates the Deity need not be argued: that is its
grand offence. “ For my own part,” said the philosopher, “I had much
rather people should say of me that there neither is nor ever was such a
man as Plutarch, than they should say, Plutarch is an unsteady, fickle,
froward, vindictive, and touchy fellow.”
Mr. Lecky, in the sentimental mood that sometimes comes over him,
writes : “ No error can be more grave than to imagine that, when a
critical spirit is abroad, the pleasant beliefs will all remain, and the pain
ful' ones alone will perish. Superstitions appeal to our hopes as well as
to our fears. They often meet and gratify the inmost longings of the heart.
They offer certainties when reason can only afford possibilities or proba
bilities. They sometimes even impart new sanctions to moral truths.
Often they become essential elements of happiness, and their consoling
efficacy is most felt in the languid and troubled hours when it is most
needed. We owe more to our illusions than to our knowledge. ‘ Why is
it,’ said Luther’s wife, looking sadly back upon the sensuous creed which
she had left, ‘ that in our old faith we prayed so often and so warmly,
and that our prayers are now so few and so cold ? ’ ”
But the argument conveyed in this mournful passage proves too much.
Let comfort be the master, and who would leave the fireside ? Was Luther
wrong in leaving the Church of Rome ? Not in this pensive mood
did Mr. Lecky write his “ History of Rationalism in Europe.” That we
owe more to our illusions than to our knowledge, he has taught thousands
�83
to question: that proposition we take leave, in his own name, to deny.
We are quite willing that the pleasant superstitions should go with the
painful ones; that the prayers should become fewer and colder till, as
ceremonies, they cease’; that the dreams should be dispelled by the
dawn ; and’ that the good angels along with the evil should fade away in
the brightening daylight of science. Instead of consoling ourselves in
“ languid and troubled hours ” with illusions, let us make such hours fewer
by knowledge. .
Heat and light are not the same thing, but they have one cause. Light
undergoes no change of manifestation that does not in the same manner
and degree affect heat. The same agent that falling on the nerves of
seeing produces vision, falling on the nerves of feeling produces heat.
So, if knowledge strike the understanding alone, it merely illuminates;
but if it touch the chords of moral enthusiasm, a glow is excited, that,
better than any striking of flints or crackling of fagots will take away
the chill of the human heart.
The subject of the Essay was then opened for discussion. The
following report is an abstract of the addresses that were
made : —
Prof. William Denton was the first speaker. He began with the
remark that, while listening to Mr. Frothingham’s essay, he had come to
the conclusion that Free Religion might be correctly defined as the appli
cation of science and common sense to matters of religion, just as we have
applied them to other matters; and, when that should be done, the rod of
dogmatism and superstition would be broken. Enumerating several
instances where the advance of science had abolished superstitious beliefs
and fears, he proceeded to the special point to which his remarks were
directed, — Bible-worship. The Bible, with the popular beliefs concern
ing it, seemed to him, in this country, the grand fountain of superstition;
and we should never be free from the terrible curse until the Bible should
take its place with other books that belonged to the record of man on
religious subjects. People should be left at liberty to take just as much
of it for truth as would harmonize with reason and common sense, and
reject all the rest. At present the Bible was the great idol of Christen
dom. People talked about the heathen idolaters in far-away countries.
But Boston, said he, is full of idolaters, — full of heathen temples and hea
then priests officiating in them. In the chiefest place in the temple is this
god, the Bible, gilded like a god in a Chinese Joss-house;1 and the priest
every Sunday bows down and worships it, and calls upon the assembled
people to do the same. They may not offer up their sheep and oxen in
�84
sacrifice ; but, what is worse, they sacrifice their reason and conscience and
manliness. If it should be said that no Christian believes the Bible to be
very God, he would answer that no heathen believes his image to be his
God. But in both cases the God is believed to be imaged in the idol.
The Bible is taken as God’s infallible representative. He then proceeded
to show some of the evils of this view of the Bible. It stood in the way
of the advance of science among the people, and it made cowards also of
scientific men. There were scientific men in America to-day who did not
tell all they think and believe, because it would come into conflict with
the popular notion of the Bible. So this Bible-idolatry imprisons thought
and delays the wheels of progress. There are thousands of people who
are drawn to Darwin’s view of creation and would accept it, but fear it
because it is going to overturn the Bible and Orthodoxy. Another evil
of this Bible-idolatry was that it put over mankind, in Jesus, a “ Lord and
Master,” before whose authority the great mass of people bow down as
slaves. The speaker would spurn all such yokes of authority in religion.
He was here on this planet for himself, and the only master he could
recognize was the God who spoke through his own consciousness ; and he
knew of no better way to end superstition than to set men on their two
feet, let them look at the matter with their own eyes, and accept nothing
that does not commend itself to their own best judgment and conscience.
In conclusion, Mr. Denton referred to Mr. Frothingham’s remarks on the
possibilities of superstition in Spiritualism. He said he did not share in
the fear. He did not know of a single man or woman (who had any great
influence among Spiritualists) who taught that spirits are to be regarded
as authority not to be questioned, or that what comes from them is to have
any more authority than would be claimed for a living man or woman.
Just as he would put the Bible alongside of other so-called sacred books,
and read it and study it with them, claiming the same kind of authority
for all, so he would put the revelations of Spiritualists alongside of ideas
from any other source, and have men and women read for themselves and
judge them all alike, submitting them to the test of their own reason. A
spirit is nothing more than a man with his jacket off. As he would
not make any living man his master, so he would not make the spirit
of a dead man his master. And while Spiritualism should hold to that, he
had no fear of its superstition. It had done more, in his opinion, than all
other means together to break down the power of superstition and the
dogmatism of the sects. In the place of superstitious notions about the’
future world, Spiritualism had brought the demonstration of facts ; and it
invited for the facts the tests of reason and science.
Mr. J. Vila Blake, minister of the Twenty-eighth Congregational So
ciety, Boston, followed Mr. Denton. He announced that, after hearing such
�85
radical utterances, he should have to appear as a conservative; and he re
joiced that the platform was so broad that he could speak in that character.
He then criticised Mr. Frothingham’s remarks on the subject of prayer,
thinking them too extreme, and inconsistent with Mr. Frothingham’s own
practice in his pulpit services. He also thought rather more of the Bible
and of the kind of authority which, as it seemed to him, Jesus meant to
assume, than Mr. Denton appeared to think. By calling himself a con
servative, he meant that he had a great regard for the past. His rever
ence for the past was so great that he wanted all the facts of the past just
as they were, and all the past. That seemed to him a shallow radicalism
which only went back eighteen hundred years. He would go back for
his facts a great deal farther than that. As to miracles, he was too con
servative to believe them; for he could not find, after weighing the evi
dence, that any such things were ever facts. And as to the Bible, that
did not cover the whole of human history. He must have all human
experience for his basis. He then passed to discuss the special point of
the superstitious observance of Sunday, and quoted many sayings from
those who are commonly regarded as authorities in the Christian Church,
in opposition to the modern Orthodox view of Sunday. The example
and teaching of Jesus himself were directly against the Pharisaical use of
the Sabbath day in his time; and that Pharisaical use of the Sabbath
among the Jews corresponds very nearly to the present “evangelical”
doctrine of Sunday. So Paul said it was a piece of Jewish superstition
to reckon one day above another. Luther said, “ If they tell you to be
solemn on the Lord’s day, I will bid you sing and dance and play upon it.”
Calvin and others of the leading reformers said substantially the same
thing. It was not till Puritanism came that that kind of Sunday observ
ance which is now contended for by Orthodoxy was known in Christendom.
This Orthodox doctrine of Sunday must be pronounced therefore a mod
ern innovation. True conservatism cannot defend it, for it has compar
atively a very brief past behind it. The lesson of the real past of
Christendom is that Sunday is free, — that we are free to use the day in
neighborly kindness for whatever we may think conducive to human
welfare. But even if the New Testament enjoined this observance of
Sunday, — which, in his opinion, it did not do, — and even if Christians from
the Apostolic age were unanimous in enjoining it, he would still say that
experience, reason, and common sense teach a better use of the day, and
4 that we are free to change the usage. He would make it a day of rest,
of recreation, of refreshment to body and mind, — a day of familiar
. assembling and enjoyment .for all, especially for the young. A simple
freedom from selfishness would solve the problem. What we should do
is so to order the day that the .utmost possible freedom and refreshment
*
�86
should be gained at the expense of the minimum of labor. He believed
in the necessity of the day, but more as a holiday than as a day for
formal worship. He would do any thing that only for one more hour in
a year would relieve this American people of their terrific industry. And
if the day were kept as it might be, and hallowed by natural uses as it
ought to be, it would come to us once a week distilling heavenly bene
dictions.
• Mr. Frothingham, alluding to Mr. Blake’s criticism of his statement
concerning Prayer, said he had .spoken of Prayer in the sense of im
ploring favors from the Supreme Being which men must earn for them
selves. It was this kind of praying that he hoped would cease. It had
ceased with him long ago. The expression of aspiration, the mingling of
our thoughts with the Highest and Best, — that was something very dif
ferent ; and that in his humble way he tried still to do.
Mr. A. M. Powell, editor of the “National Standard,” New York,
was the last speaker. The movement represented by the Free Religious
Association, he said, as he understood it, had two functions, — one of in
terpretation, the other of application. The first had been largely exhibited
during the day: he wanted now to bring forward more specially the
second. He desired to show the practical side of the Free Religious move
ment, — to set forth its connection with philanthropy and social reform,—
and at the same time to expose the power of dogmatism and superstition,
as organized in the Christian churches, in resisting philanthropic and
reformatory efforts. But as the hour was late, he would only hint at the
topic. He felt a strong interest in the intellectual interpretation of Radi
calism, but his interest was stronger in the practical outcome of it. He
saw around him the most distressing suffering, the bitterest injustices and
wrongs, human energies wasted and corrupted by dissipating vices, and
our pretences to civilization mocked on all sides by the actual condition of
society. You appeal to the Christian churches to take hold of these
practical evils and rectify them, but for the most part they pass by on the
other side. They are so devoted to inculcating their dogmas and keeping
up their ceremonies that they cannot take up the works of justice and
humanity. Therefore he looked with hope to this movement for the
emancipation of the human mind from the thraldom of ecclesiastical
authority and from the chains of dogmatism and superstition. From
mental emancipation, moral emancipation must logically follow. But, said
he, when we go from this platform to apply the lessons here learned, im- i
mediately, as soon as we reach yonder side-walk, in our very first effort to
reform these evils, ■— to check intemperance, t® eradicate the spirit of caste,
to establish the equal rights of woman, to remedy “ the social evil,” to abolish
the gallows, — we shall meet the Church as an organized power against us
�'87
and the greatest obstacle in our path. Just as the old anti-slavery battle was
fought and won in spite of the American Church and clergy, so it seems as
if all social and civil reforms had got to be carried against the same oppo
sition. The Church is bent on saving its ordinances and its theology, no
matter what becomes of these great problems of humanity. It is afraid of
the agitation which they cause, and turns a deaf ear. Clergymen quote
St. Paul as infallible authority, and because he said, “ Let women keep
silence in the churches,” think that that settles the woman question. Be
cause of the superstitious observance of the Communion, wine is used even
by those who do not believe in its use elsewhere; and so a great obstacle
to the cause of Temperance is continued by the authority of the Church.
Temperance reformers have yet to learn that they must make war upon
the use of wine at the Communion-table as well as at the Parker House.
In all these questions of reform the same ecclesiastical opposition will be
met. Hence the usefulness of such conventions as this, to help break this
bondage of the Church, in order that men and women may stand up in their
emancipated manhood and womanhood, ready and free for every good
work.
The hour of ten having arrived, the exercises of the day were
closed, and the Convention adjourned.
4
�CONSTITUTION
OF THE
\
FREE RELIGIOUS ASSOCI AT I O N.
I. This Association shall be called the Free Religious Associa
tion, — its objects being to promote the interests of pure religion,
to encourage the scientific study of theology, and to increase fel
lowship in the spirit ; and to this end, all persons interested in
these objects are cordially invited to its membership.
II. Membership in this Association shall leave each individual
responsible for his own opinions alone, and affect in no degree his
relations to other associations. Any person desiring to co-operate
with this Association shall be considered a member, with full right
to speak in its meetings ; but an annual contribution of one dollar
shall be necessary to give a title to vote, — provided, also, that
those thus entitled may at any time confer the privilege of voting
upon the whole assembly, on questions not pertaining to the man
agement of business.
III. The officers of the Association shall be a President, three
Vice-Presidents, a Secretary and Assistant Secretary, a Treasurer,
and six Directors ; who together shall constitute an Executive
Committee, intrusted with all the business and interests of the
Association in the interim of its meetings. These officers shall be
chosen by ballot, at the Annual Meeting of the Association, and
shall hold their offices for one year, or until others be chosen in
their place ; and they shall have power to fill any vacancies that
may occur in their number between the annual meetings. Five
members of the Executive Committee shall constitute a quorum.
IV. The Annual Meeting of the Association shall be held in the
city of Boston, on Thursday, of what is known as “ Anniversary
Week,” at such place, and with such sessions, as the Executive
Committee may appoint ; of which, at least one month’s previous
notice shall be publicly given. Other meetings and conventions
may be called by the Committee, according to their judgment, at
such times and places as may seem to them desirable.
V. These Articles may be amended at any Annual Meeting of
the Association, by a majority vote of the members present, pro
vided public notice of the amendment has been given with the call
for the meeting.
*
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Proceedings of the fourth annual meeting of the Free Religious Association, held in Boston, June 1 and 2, 1871
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Free Religious Association
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Boston
Collation: 87, [1] p. ; 24 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
John Wilson and Son
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5291
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Proceedings of the fourth annual meeting of the Free Religious Association, held in Boston, June 1 and 2, 1871), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Free Religious Association
Free Thought
Freedom of Religion